http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research Just another bbPress community en-US Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:04:50 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/search.php http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-48697 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:13:29 +0000 beeline 48697@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ Heh - we have easily enough material for a 'Retractions Special'. It would consist mainly of research mistakes, slips-of-the-tongue made by Stephen and guests which were not picked up in the edit, or 'facts' that have become out-of-date either between recording and broadcast, or between series. (See 'moons', 'triple point of water', etc...)<br /> <br /> It's actually remarkably difficult to pin down what constitutes 'fact'. It's a bit like history - very much a process of interpreting the validity of sources and opinions whose stock rises and falls in a quite fluid fashion. Quite interesting, though... http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-47964 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:49:17 +0000 Spiny Norman 47964@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ &quot;Dune&quot; (1984) wasn't directed by &quot;Alan Smithee&quot;, he only got that credit for the longer TV edition. David Lynch did take the credit for the theatrical release. <br /> <br /> I spotted a small mistake in QI and it doesn't even feel good. I feel like a nagger. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-47293 Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:53:59 +0000 beeline 47293@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ Interestingly, an article recently appeared on MSN about Bell's naughtiness surrounding the acquisition of the telephone patent:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22400009/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22400009/</a><br /> <br /> AxmxZ, could you provide us with the exact nature of the mistakes that QI researchers are constantly making? I'd be glad to fill you in on the background for any piece of research with which you disagree, as we keep a (reasonably) meticulous list of all our sources, as I'm sure you do with your corrections.<br /> <br /> And yes, occasionally we make mistakes because we are (gasp!) human. QI genuinely does try to open people's eyes to interesting things of which most people may be unaware. Of course we welcome corrections and clarifications - that's an important part of learning - but might I suggest that you try to raise them with more grace. It's very easy to target the show's staff from afar, and use any perceived mistake as a springboard to elevate one's own intellectual status amongst one's peers, but that's not really the game we're in. We like to *discuss* differences of opinion, and perhaps work together to find the best explanation available, not embark on slightly pointless ego trips.<br /> <br /> Yes, we were wrong about the first written use of the word 'hello' - it wasn't Edison at all, it turns out. But - quite interestingly - according to the OED, neither was it Mark Twain. That was indeed a simple mistake. But it's certainly worth trying yourself to find a thousand interesting facts and placing them before an audience of several million to see if every single one of them stands up. I'll guarantee nobody can do that. If you can manage more than a 95% hit rate, we'll consider hiring you! http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-46996 Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:01:02 +0000 StickyKeys 46996@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ Seriously though, who has actually seen The Godfather 3? I could barely sit through the first one. Blueh &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.stephenfry.com/bb-content/plugins//bb-smilies/default/icon_wink.gif&quot; title=&quot;;)&quot; class=&quot;bb_smilies&quot; /&gt; http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-46646 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:12:09 +0000 Spiny Norman 46646@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ The telephone was pretty useless until carbon transmitters (a type of microphone) was invented by Edison. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-44034 Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:11:04 +0000 Anonymous 44034@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.stephenfry.com/bb-content/plugins//bb-smilies/default/icon_biggrin.gif&quot; title=&quot;:-D&quot; class=&quot;bb_smilies&quot; /&gt; See this is why Doctor Who is sooo much better.<br /> <br /> Martha: But, how do you travel in time? What makes it go?<br /> The Doctor: Oh, let’s take the fun and the mystery out of everything! Martha, you don’t want to know, it just does. Hold on tight! http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-44022 Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:50:10 +0000 MinervaMoon 44022@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ Haha! To be fair, Star Trek does use a fair amount of technobabble. Can someone tell me what a plasma injector does? It doesn't sound like injecting plasma anywhere would be a good idea. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43986 Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:57:05 +0000 Anonymous 43986@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ If QI can be wrong then perhaps I am not as thick as I thought. <br /> <br /> MinervaMoon - I would have got the telephone question right. Not because I'm super clever or anything, but because it was mentioned 2 or 3 times in The Godfather Part 3! So the fact that nobody in the studio got it in that episode worries me. It's like those times when they interview someone like Patrick Stewart about their big sci-fi show and they say something like &quot;Half the time I don't understand the scripts! Ha ha ha!&quot; and I think to myself &quot;For fuck's sake it may be sci-fi but it's not rocket science! This is mass audience stuff! If you don't get it, I am going to have serious doubts about your comprehension of, say, Shakespeare.&quot; http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43705 Sun, 11 Nov 2007 03:33:28 +0000 AxmxZ 43705@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ I can imagine if there was a question like 'who invented the telephone?' Alan Davies would say 'Alexander Graham Bell', he'd get the obvious-but-wrong sirens and it would turn out to be some guy who invented it in 1750 but never patented it, or it was made out of toilet roll tubes or something, I don't know. </blockquote><br /> <br /> <a href="http://freewebs.com/qitranscripts/111.htm">That already happened . . .</a>.</blockquote><br /> haha wow, maybe i forgot that i remembered it or something. but then there have been a LOT of weird coincidences/me guessing what's going to happen over the last couple of days...maybe i'm in the matrix.</blockquote><br /> <br /> I'm afraid I've got a prior claim to being the matrix. Check out this snippet of a chat I had with my friend/professor two days ago. <br /> <br /> WARNING: blasphemy ahead. So if your religious feelings are easily offended, now is the time to click the &quot;back&quot; button.<br /> <br /> ------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> <b>poniness: </b>you can't turn water into heroin. God cannot create dipole ex nihlio<br /> <b>me: </b>God can do anything given enough impetus and alcohol<br /> <b>poniness: </b>there's a conservation of magnetic moment, which explains the theodicy of the lack of monopoles <br /> no, you're thinking of Russians<br /> <b>me:</b> i mean, he created everything ex nihilo, what makes you think a dipole or two is beyond him?<br /> 4:09 PM <b>poniness:</b> because dipoles imply that there's a balance between opposing forces. to create one would imply creating the other<br /> 4:10 PM and unless yo'ure a zoroastrian, this is going to be problematic. Dipole = problem of evil<br /> 4:11 PM the lack of magnetic monopoles is proof of teh unity and goodness of god<br /> 4:12 PM <b>me:</b> nevertheless, dipoles exist, and God must've created them. so what would disable him from creating more of them at will?<br /> 4:25 PM <b>poniness:</b> because a god who creates new dipoles ex nihilo would not one one in which we could know that the world is good<br /> <b>me:</b> &quot;would not one one &quot;?<br /> <b>poniness: </b>be one<br /> 4:26 PM <b>me:</b> wouldn't that technically speaking do away not just with dipoles but with all miracules?<br /> lol<br /> 'miracules' - miracles with animalcules<br /> 4:27 PM <b>poniness: </b>wow, i just finished grading papers on spermatism and religion<br /> those woudl count as miracules<br /> <b>me:</b> LOL<br /> i am TEH PSYCHICs. lolz.<br /> ph34r m3<br /> <br /> ------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.stephenfry.com/bb-content/plugins//bb-smilies/default/icon_biggrin.gif&quot; title=&quot;:-D&quot; class=&quot;bb_smilies&quot; /&gt; http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43695 Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:44:20 +0000 whatonearth 43695@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ I can imagine if there was a question like 'who invented the telephone?' Alan Davies would say 'Alexander Graham Bell', he'd get the obvious-but-wrong sirens and it would turn out to be some guy who invented it in 1750 but never patented it, or it was made out of toilet roll tubes or something, I don't know. </blockquote><br /> <br /> <a href="http://freewebs.com/qitranscripts/111.htm">That already happened . . .</a>.</blockquote><br /> haha wow, maybe i forgot that i remembered it or something. but then there have been a LOT of weird coincidences/me guessing what's going to happen over the last couple of days...maybe i'm in the matrix. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43678 Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:31:40 +0000 MinervaMoon 43678@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ I can imagine if there was a question like 'who invented the telephone?' Alan Davies would say 'Alexander Graham Bell', he'd get the obvious-but-wrong sirens and it would turn out to be some guy who invented it in 1750 but never patented it, or it was made out of toilet roll tubes or something, I don't know. </blockquote><br /> <br /> <a href="http://freewebs.com/qitranscripts/111.htm">That already happened . . .</a>. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43618 Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:17:53 +0000 whatonearth 43618@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ I have a bone to pick with yesterday's episode actually.<br /> <br /> They said that Mr Q (can't remember his name) invented the Q-tip after he saw his wife cleaning out her kids' ears with cotton wool on the end of a toothpick (am I right or am I just imagining this?)...well if you ask me his WIFE invented the Q-tip, he just redesigned it slightly and patented it. Sexism to the max if you ask me, and I can imagine if there was a question like 'who invented the telephone?' Alan Davies would say 'Alexander Graham Bell', he'd get the obvious-but-wrong sirens and it would turn out to be some guy who invented it in 1750 but never patented it, or it was made out of toilet roll tubes or something, I don't know. So yes, naughty naughty QI! http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43453 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:35:38 +0000 AxmxZ 43453@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ I thought the whole point of QI was to get people to see how weird and fascinating the world is. The *real* world, not fabrications gleaned off the web. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43408 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:23:16 +0000 whatonearth 43408@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ Haha to be honest I've always taken every bit of info on QI with a small pinch of salt. I love it for its niceness and humour but I never really 'learn' anything from it apart from that there are interesting little tidbits of information everywhere. And moonwalking birds. http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/dubious-quality-of-qi-research#post-43402 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:45:26 +0000 TobiasMonk 43402@http://www.stephenfry.com/forum/ Wow.<br /> That is all.