Talk:Martin Gardner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Gardner article.
Article policies


A lot of this article is written by an obvious fan of Gardner -- nothing wrong with that, I admire him too. But "deeply loved" and other stuff that "reeks of fandom" as someone wrote about another article, should definitely be deleted or toned down. They are POV or borderline POV and in an case sound very amateurish in an encycl. article. I got rid of some of the worst examples a month or so ago, but the whole article could use some tightening and a critical rewrite. Hayford Peirce 18:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment by JDF: Everything in the article seems pro-Gardner, perhaps OK if the man has no flaw, but there exists criticism of him. For example: "In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of General Semantics," by Bruce I. Kodish, appeared in General Semantics Bulletin, Number 71, 2004, pp. 50-63.

Contents

[edit] Inexplicable redirect

Uriah Fuller redirects to Martin Gardner, without the slightest hint as to why this should make sense. Please add an explanation to Gardner's biography. <KF> 00:57, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • I've removed the redirect and written a brief article with a link to Gardner. Someone else screwed things up earlier. Hayford Peirce 01:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, it's a pseudonym! Thanks a lot. <KF> 01:20, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy books list

One (possibly more) of the books listed as if it is by Gardner is not: -The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics is by Roger Penrose, one of the most important mathematicians of recent years, although Gardner wrote the foreword. I shall correct this and some of the other obvious fandom, but take this as a note that the booklist may not be accurate.

Agree. I've done a little editing and put all the "Mathematical Recreations" collections in proper order, but I think the list could benefit by a re-org. Get all the annotated works together, article collections together, pseudoscience/skeptic stuff together, etc. ---Emb021 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, but the problem with Gardner is that he keeps re-issuing books with updates and different titles. We musn't make the mistake of listing the same book several times, or books containing only articles listed in the other sections.

Wragge 14:54, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

[edit] critique of hollow earth theory as example of method

Do we really need a long discussion on the benefits of hollow Earth theory here? Can't we just put this stuff on the hollow-Earth page? To be honest, it's so silly that I can't imagine a real encyclopedia would ever discuss such a thing in a Martin Gardner entry. I know- that's my POV and I apologize to the people who believe in hollow Earths. I just had the misfortune of being born on the surface of a sphere and I can't help it. Christianjb 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact I just convinced myself. I'm moving this stuff to the Hollow Earth page right now. If anyone can supply me with another biography of Gardner that so prominently mentions Hollow Earths then I'll be happy to reconsider. I'm open to compromise here. Christianjb 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

TO Christianjb: The discussion you removed, which mentioned hollow earth, was not about any hollow earth theory per se, but was instead a fairly clear illustration of a possible shgothe method of so-called "skeptical inquiry" in Martin Gardner's attack (crusade?) against what he calls "pseudoscience." Someone actually removed what was largely the same discussion from the "Hollow Earth" page, evidently because it was essentially about Martin Gardner and about Gardner's method of reasoning and his polemical style. Christianjb, I wonder whether you read the passage carefully. The point illustrated by Martin Gardner's use of this type of ad hominem critique is highly relevant to an intellectual biography of Gardner. I think you might wish to re-read the passage you moved, and consider restoring the passage (or perhaps an improved version of it) to the Martin Gardner page. Thanks. 160.253.0.248 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The "moved, not removed" passage was mostly deleted, almost immediately after it was added to the Hollow Earth article. Below is text that could be added back in to the Gardner article:

Martin Gardner is considered to be one of the most readable and accessible popularizers of science in the English language. Gardner is especially well known for his efforts to educate the public about "genuine science" versus what he calls "pseudoscience." Yet Gardner's self-described "skeptical" attitude toward "pseudoscience" is itself sometimes open to critique on scientific grounds. An example is Gardner's critique of one contemporary proponent of a concave hollow Earth theory, Mostafa Abdelkader, whom Gardner discusses in one chapter of Gardner's book On the Wild Side (1992). Gardner notes that "most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable." However, Gardner rejects the concave hollow Earth theory, not because it has been shown to be wrong, but instead entirely on the basis of Occam's Razor. Curiously, Gardner goes on, in ad hominem fashion, to state that, although "[n]owhere does Abdelkader invoke the Koran or his religious faith," Gardner nevertheless "suspects" that "Muslim fundamentalism lurks in the background" of Abdelkader's work in mathematics and physics. Martin Gardner is among the leading popularizers of the "dubunking" of eccentric views as pseudoscience, so it is interesting that Gardner would seek to discredit a scientific theory by attributing religious motives. This type of attack does not seem scientifically based, any more than Adolf Hitler's belief in the physics of jet propulsion, for example, would serve to debunk jet propulsion as pseudoscience. Likewise, neither Newton's religious views, nor the Muslim beliefs of the great medieval Arab mathematicians, should serve to discredit their mathematical work as "pseudoscience") Criticism based on Occam's Razor is standard and within the realm of widely accepted scientific reasoning, but ad hominem "suspicion" about religious views cannot be a reasonable basis for the epithet "pseudoscience." This type of polemical use of the phrase "pseudoscience" opens a self-described a skeptical inquirer, like Martin Gardner, to the criticism that he is a dogmatic enforcer of orthodoxy.

No, this is fantastically POV and largely irrelevent to the article. Even the hollow Earth editors removed this text because of its POV style. If this text can't survive on a Hollow Earth page it's got no place here. You undermine all your arguments by invoking Hitler, Newton and "ad-hominem"- all in one paragraph.

I'm tired of the following arguments:

  • Hitler ate tomatoes +
  • Newton hated tomatoes +
  • People who like tomatoes have engaged in ad hominem attacks on tomato haters.

Therefore: Tomatoes are evil.

Not nearly good enough, but thanks for contributing. Christianjb 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You're probably correct that the mention of Adolf Hitler did not belong in that passage; the Hitler reference there seems inappropriate, partly because Hitler references are by nature inflammatory but perhaps mostly because the reference was separated from its original context. The original context was that one of the arguments propounded against hollow earth theories (an argument articulated by at least one Wikipedian, not by Martin Gardner) was that Hitler supposedly had held such a view.

The sillygism about tomatoes is funny, but of course it doesn't fairly track the discussion. I think the actual form of the discussion was more like this:

  • Martin Gardner has made a career of discrediting bizarre views he believes are contradicted by scientific evidence
  • Yet Gardner's own method (like his use of the term "pseudoscience") is not always based on science
  • To take one example, Gardner's critique of the work of physicist-mathematician Abdelkader seems not really to be of a type that would normally be considered a scientifically based critique. Instead, the thrust of Gardner's criticism is expressed in Gardner's "suspicion" that Abdelkader has religious views that influenced Abdelkader's cosmological model

The fact that Gardner used such an argument against Abdelkader does not necessarily lend support to Abdelkader's physics or to Abdelkader's mathematics. But the ease with which Gardner slipped into this mode of argument could be instructive to any among us who care about method, about scientific inquiry, etc. The references to Newton and to medieval mathematicians were not part of an evil-tomato argument; the point was instead a reminder that a person's supposed religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not normally relevant to discredit his or her mathematical or physical theories.

Try rewriting. There is possibly a point to be made if Gardner often discusses the religious views of those he disagrees with. Are there any sources for your criticism- or is this just your opinion? If it's really just your opinion then I don't think you should use this. If you can find several sources then use. Christianjb 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It's possible that observations of the above sort would be best placed in an article on PSEUDOSCIENCE, because the interesting point is not that a particular individual named Martin Gardner is a bigot (he probably is not). The real point, it seems, is that the criteria for what counts as "pseudoscience" are open to some question. Paul Feyerabend was one of the most articulate philosophers of science to bring this to light. In some contexts---especially in the context of the U.S. Constitution and first amendment establishment clause analysis---a motive to advance a religious perspective can be quite relevant (and discrediting). For example, some courts have ruled that textbooks promoted by the so-called "intelligent design" movement are part of an unconstitutional effort to infuse the public school curriculum with religion. The point in that context is separation of church and state, in light of the Lemon v. Kurtzman constitutional test. But in other contexts the relgious views of persons advancing scientific theories should normally be much less relevant to an evaluation of the theories.

\/\/\/\


[The following comment was added by an anonymous editor to the article; I have moved it here where it is more appropriate. --C S (Talk) 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)]

Note: Can someone expand on this (i.e. Garnder criticized for statements on Hollow Earth theory).

I agree with you on taking that out of the article. For one, it is inapppropriate, second Gardner is against the hollow Earth theory (which I just clarified in the article.) Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books on magic written for the trade

I see that Gardner's books for the magic trade are specifically not listed. Why is that? Is it unprofessional to list those books? I have one and could add it to the list, but not if it's against wikipedia policy or otherwise impolite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.152.77 (talk • contribs)

I think the goal of the encyclopedia, and especially a biographical article, would be furthered by including references to his works on illusions. Slowmover 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, since I'm the one that added the note saying his "for the trade" books are not listed, let me explain. When I made this edit, I wasn't intending to take sides on whether we should list his specialty magic books or not. As you can see from the diff, it wasn't even noted in the article that he was a magician! In fact, it seemed pretty clear to me that while people had done a lot of work on the article, nobody really realized his influence in the magic community. Thus, I added a note saying he was a magician and pointed out that while many of his books are listed, his specialty magic books were not (I recall he has a fairly significant number of these also). I was not intending on making a prescription or statement that his magic books should not be listed. --C S (Talk) 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book: Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing

The book Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing is listed as being published in 1984. I had a book with this title in 1963 or 1964, but I don't know the author. Was the 1984 book a reprint of this earlier book, or is it different from the earlier book? I've found a reference to a 1972 edition of Gardner's book by Simon and Schuster, but I'm sure I had a paperback from Scholastic Book Service in the 4th grade (1963-64) (that title, at least). Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of "Codes and Secret Writing" by Herbert S. Zim, (c)1948. I have fond memories of this excellent work, from around the time you mention. Bog 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right. I got a copy of Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing by Gardner. Looking at it, it looks like a book I read when I was young, but not the one I had in mind. My daughter is in the 4th grade, and I'm planning to give it to her - it was at that age when I read the book (but probably the other book!). Bubba73 (talk), 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And the book by Zim was published by Scholastic, as I remembered. So that was probably it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Removed "mate" from expression "yeoman's mate." The title of the Navy rating is simply "Yeoman," modified by rank, as Chief Yeoman, Yeoman 2nd Class, Yeoman Apprentice, and so forth. The writer was confused by other Navy ratings such as Boatswain's Mate and Gunner's Mate in which the "mate" IS part of the title. Bog 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback from Martin Gardner himself

I just got a letter from Martin Gardner, after I had sent a printout of the article to him. He "enjoyed" the article and gave a positive feedback upon it. He only noticed the error that I just corrected (see [1]). --Mosmas 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contacting

This doesn't quite belong here, but does anyone know a way to contact Martin Gardner personally, i.e. email? Perhaps he has a blog that could be linked to...Leon math 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Gardner is now 92, and he isn't online in any way. When I found this interview with Martin Gardner I wrote Colm Mulcahy and since I explained him my specific concern he gave me Martins address. That way I could contact him (see entry above). However I think I shouldn't publish Martins address here. Maybe you should ask Colm, too. --Mosmas 21:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. Leon math 19:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kordish

There are two links to criticisms by a B. Kordish listed in the external links section. I thought they seemed a bit out of place, and sure enough they were added by a user named Kordish.  :) I'm removing them for now as seeming vanity,, although I suppose if Kordish's criticism of Gardner is notable it should be mentioned under the Controversy section. --Starwed 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gardner

Just how did he go from doing a degree in philosophy to writing books on mathematics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.231.101 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

He did his homework - lot's of self-study. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.223.150 (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a Picture of Martin

Someone can please add to the article a picture, in permission of course? (Maybe from the man himself?) Thank you. 82.166.143.82 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] martin on l ron hubard

Gardener, Martin (Author): "Dianetics is a book of impressive thickness, written in a repetitious, immature style. Hubbard claims he wrote it in three weeks. This is believable because most of his writing is done at lightning speed. (For a while, he used a special electric IBM typewriter with extra keys for common words like 'and,' 'the,' and 'but.' The paper was on a roll to avoid the interruption of changing sheets.) Nothing in the book remotely resembles a scientific report." - Chapter 22 Dianetics from Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner; Dover, New York: 1957. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Gardner on his Wikipedia page

I sent Martin Gardner a copy of his Wikipedia page a few months ago At that time he did not have internet access. I talked to him yesterday (March 21, 08) and he said there are a couple minor errors in the introduction, though most of the citation is quite accurate.

It is correctly stated that Martin was a yeoman in the Navy in WWII, but that he was never a signalman, nor was he secretary to the ship's captain. Wiki: "While his primary duty was signaling by means of flags and lights, demanding superb eyesight..." Martin said this just isn't true, and the idea that he has "superb eyesight" will be contradicted by any photo of him wearing very thick glasses.

Martin has moved from Henderson NC to Norman, OK where he can be close to his son Jim, and where he continues to be active, writing books (his newest is on optical illusions with pop-out models. He also writes book reviews for various magazines.

--Scot Morris (former games editor of "OMNI" magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotiam (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxs perpetrated by Gardner

I believe that Martin Gardiner was the author of an article appearing in Esquire in the early 70s on pyramid power. I remember reading the article which outlined the outlandish even preposterous effects and phenomena attributed to the mystical power of pyramids in a convincing, matter of fact maner; so that, many (including myself) were fooled into believing in it's (the essay's) authenticity, if not in the veracity of the absurd claims made for pyramid power. Since Esquire (ante-Murdoch) was read by a fairly literate crowd, the hoax proved a real indicator and indictment of human gullability, even in erstwhile educated people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.101.67 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)