Andrew Rindsberg's reply covers some of the cogent points well. Very few
of us 'go for the throat' when the object is understanding and
comprehension, by way of rational thought. (I refrain from using the
phrase "scientific method" since reading Henry H. Bauer's SCIENTIFIC
LITERACY AND THE MYTH OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.)
 
Andy's reply, though, brings up a good point -- is it really our 'job'
to prove a scientist wrong? A quote attributed to Mark Twain says that
you should go ahead and brag, even lie, because 49 times out of 50,
no one will call you down on it. Great for telling stories -- not for
fact-finding.
 
In the instance that egged me on to mention the subject, it would have
been fine to have given the method (i.e, 'do this, this, and this --
and the following will occur.'). But to go on and say 'This is why it
works...' and be completely wrong, is not something to be let alone.
Having some training in the actions of gases in liquids (several years
as a sport SCUBA instructor), a faux pas such as this raises a big
flag.
 
Anyhow, as those who have read the item may have noticed, I addressed
only the 'science,' not the author.
 
I have included the original posting below, for any who may have
missed it or disposed of their original version.
 
 
Aloha,
 
Bob Dayle (a.k.a. makuabob)
--------------------------------------------
 
Having resumed the 'electronification' of cowry-related articles, I
have encountered an instance of advice which, if followed, gives the
desired result but is justified with totally incorrect science. Since
the 'advice' was given by an "expert" and published (then re-published
half a year later) without the science being questioned and/or
corrected, many readers will give it credence for that reason alone.
Having checked the issues for the following year; I found no correction
printed.
 
The item I am discussing can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/6061/NSN206CY.HTM#A1
My own response is added to this article but the question I have for
any who read 'expert'advise is, "How is the authority of an 'expert' to
be re-evaluated when science errors, such as these, are uncovered?"
 
I see it as fairly important and have tried to set the 'science' itself
straight. I may not have done it very tactfully in spite of my
credentials from the 'Road-Warrior Academy of Diplomacy and Hostage
Negotiation.'
 
Do any workers amongst us have similar experiences that could give a
clearer sense of how things like this can be addressed? If you don't
wish to comment to the listserver, I'd be interested in hearing from
you directly.