• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Typo That Failed to Bark in the Night

Nova Land

/
N
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
6,014
Location
Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
In this week's commentary, I believe Randi misreads one of his readers.

Randi quotes from a reader, Dan Thompson, and then makes a brief reply. But the reply doesn't seem to match the quoted passage. Here is the complete quoted text from Dan Thompson:
As a person with a background in Information Technology, it was quite apparent to me upon reading Mr. Lloyd's excerpts that he is applying the mechanics of his intelligently-designed (in the literal sense of the term) software world to the physics of the real world, which is simply ludicrous. His frequent references to "application layers" and "object-oriented systems" clearly show his bias.

This becomes apparent when you use a more familiar subject: suppose an auto mechanic tried to interpret Geller's spoonbending using his area of expertise. He might surmise that the mind is like the carburetor, while the stroking of the spoon is analogous to the sparkplug and the spoon itself is the piston. Of course, such an analogy would be completely nonsensical and has nothing to do with the way real physics work... but by using such an analogy, you can strip away the technobabble and see how ridiculous his claims are on their face.

Of course, given his unending references to the Matrix movies, maybe I'm overexplaining the writings of someone with a clear lack of a grasp on reality...
Click to expand...
And here is Randi's complete reply:
Dan, I sense here an implication that psychics actually have something going for them besides tricks and subterfuge... That, I cannot accept.
Click to expand...

Randi says he senses an implication that Thompson thinks psychics have something going for them. I sense no such implication. But I do have a strong suspicion that Randi is reading the passage "has nothing to do with the way real physics work" as if it said has nothing to do with the way real psychics work". Read that way, Randi's reply makes sense.

This is an easy type of mistake to make, and I make this kind of error frequently myself. Just thought I'd point it out, in case Randi had misread Thompson's passage and would like to look at it again in a slightly different light. (And in case anyone else was as puzzled by Randi's remark as I momentarily was.)
 
"has nothing to do with the way real physics work" as if it said has nothing to do with the way real psychics work". Read that way, Randi's reply makes sense.

This is an easy type of mistake to make,

'Specially since,in the quote it should be "real physics works"the word
"physics" takes the singular verb when used in this sense.
 
7th sextile said:
'Specially since,in the quote it should be "real physics works". The word "physics" takes the singular verb when used in this sense.
Click to expand...
Yes. The missing s is the typo that failed to bark.

Omitting the s was an easy mistake for Thompson to make, and one which even a spell-checker would miss. But without that s, the verb work makes psychics fit better than physics.

The mind often makes unconscious corrections to the words one is reading. Ideally in this case the reader sees the words real physics work and corrects it to read real physics works. But if the mind accepts the word work as being correct, the mind may (unconsciously) alter the spelling of physics in order to fix the grammatical mis-match. Human minds, like computer spell-checkers, do funny things sometimes. I think this is one of those times.
 
good call Nova. I was a little confused, but figured there was some part I was missing in Randi's reply.

Thanks!
 
Another take on this:

Dan Thompson has certainly made a typo (left the 's' off the end of "physics works"), but Randi has read it correctly (as "physics works") and responded appropriately.
Read Rand's comment again and see if you can see how.

BJ
 
Sorry, that's not fair.
Here's my take....

Last weeks commentary:
Uri fakes bending a spoon by psychic means.
Lloyd believes Uri bends the spoon by psychic means.
Lloyd comes up with a physical explanation ("The Matrix").

This weeks commentary:
Dan provides an explanation why "The Matrix" scenario doesn't work.
Randi says that Lloyd's explanation implies that there is more than fakery to what psychics do and that responding to this just perpetuates this myth.

My opinion:
Dan is right to take Lloyd's "Matrix" explanation to task. After all, it is not Lloyd doing the faking. Uri is doing the faking. Lloyd is trying to provide an explanation for what he believes to be a real phenomenon.
Randi is wrong on three counts:
- Conflating Uri's and Lloyd's activities.
- Making cynical remarks about claims that Lloyd is not even making (see the "Sentient Cutlery" thread)
- Compounding these errors by criticising Dan for responding to Lloyd.


I'm making more out of this than it is worth but nevertheless...
(Also, I'm responding only to Lloyd's quotes contained in last weeks commentary.)
 
Last edited:
BillyJoe said:
Another take on this:

... Randi has read it correctly (as "physics works") and responded appropriately.
Read Randi's comment again and see if you can see how.
Click to expand...
I still don't see it.

But your saying that it is possible to read the commentary that way makes me a bit less confident in my guess about what happened. So I have done now what I should have done in the first place -- e-mailed Randi to ask if perhaps he misread Thompson in the way I thought he might have.

I'm glad you added the second clarifying post. My initial hasty thought on reading your first post (before I saw and registered your parenthetical about Randi adding the s so it would reads as physics works) was that you were making a semi-humorous post based on the idea that Randi had been using a somewhat less common definition of physics in which it is the plural of physic, in which it refers to a drug or, especially, a purgative. That would have made the grammar correct as Thompson wrote it. And since physics of that nature were often associated with wooishness, I thought that might be what you were referring to.

But I thought, before posting, I'd check at dictionary.com to see if there were anything about that kind of physics which implied belief in the reality of psychic stuff. No -- the dictionary.com definition didn't lend support to that theory. (And by then I had actually read your post, and seen that wasn't what you meant. Which provided me with another example of how we often read things which aren't on the page. But that's not what I'm leading up to...)

When I looked up the definition of physic on dictionary.com, the page automatically brought up an ad on the right-hand portion of the page -- and one of the ads was for a free physic reading! Yes. That is not a typo. So even though I don't usually click on ads, I clicked on that one. Highly amusing!
 
reply

My response to this error will appear on the next SWIFT...
 
...oops.

Nova, you are about to become famous.
On the other hand, my days are numbered.

:D




:mad:


(three more sleeps.....)
 
Nova_Land in SWIFT today and a response from Randi.

I'm impressed.

.
 
Missed Opportunity


NOVA, YOU FORGOT TO SIGN YOUR EMAIL!

An unsigned note arrived commenting on a point I made in last week’s SWIFT under the item “Misapplied Expertise”:
Click to expand...

So, you missed your opportunity to become FAMOUS! :mad:



Randi apologises for his error:
Properly admonished and flattered, I responded:
The expression “real psychics” would have implied that there are genuine psychics… Yes, it appears that I mis-read that, probably because of the use of the plural verb case. It should have been: “…the way real physics works,” since “physics” is a singular noun, and uses the singular verb case. And, I very frequently find the use of “physics” ... when “psychics” was intended. But that’s a poor pair of excuses…
Mea culpa…
Click to expand...

Which, of course means that I was wrong as well. :mad:
Well, at least I am in good company :D

BillyJoe
 
Just Joking!

Hmmm...I just had another thought about that unsigned email.....no, I'm sure you just forgot!

:D


Some flattery for Randi:

Thank you for the many years you have put into combating frauds and swindlers. I have been an admirer of your writing and work since the mid-70s, and am very grateful to you for creating JREF (and for the forum hosted there).
Click to expand...

Insurance policy, Nova? :D :D


regards,
BJ
 
Now that James Randi has been proven wrong then will he pay Nova the $1m prize? If not who is going to explain that to Peter Morris?
 
Last edited:
Hi. I'm the original writer mentioned.

I did notice that Randi had interpreted a meaning that wasn't there, but I guessed (correctly) that he read "psychics" instead of "physics," so I didn't think much of it.

As far as singular vs. plural goes, Merriam-Webster's web site seems to indicate that "physics" can be singular or plural in construction. I'm not sure that "...how physics works" is necessarily more correct than "...how physics work," but I'll defer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom