Talk:Martin Gardner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

(NPoV)

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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.2.75 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2005

     The fact is that Gardner is nearly universally respected, and if there is any notable controversy about him it certainly does not stem for anything he said about the fringe school that general semantics represents. In fact, re the critique offered by Bruce I. Kodish a.k.a. Bruce Kodish, he has never even had a WP bio on him deleted, let alone had his notability demonstrated here. But more to the point, in investigating the possibility of the controversy he has with MG being notable, the first hit on

"Martin Gardner" "General Semantics"

after the two WP mentions was Kodish's "Demarginalizing General Semantics", whose author-writ abstract is the 4th 'graph; i quote it in full since i would generate unjustified suspicion if i were to try to paraphrase or condense it:

In this article I explore some of the possible reasons for the marginalization of GS. After describing the unique location of GS among disciplines, I examine the critique of GS by Martin Gardner, one of its main skeptical opponents. In my view, a close look at Gardner's writings on GS will provide insight into some of the current confusion about and neglect of GS by the educated public and various academic communities. It also provides raises some embarrassing questions about the unskeptical behavior of renowned 'skeptics' like Gardner and Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine. The article concludes with a suggestion for skeptics to reevaluate general semantics.

Well. Gardner (like today's Mr. Skeptic) doesn't understand what skepticism demands, and has poisoned the minds of virtually all but the elite who practice general semantics, to the point where it is "marginalized" and can't, i suppose, grow by the leaps and bounds that it otherwise would. That's a hard theory to disprove. On the other hand, it doesn't make their criticisms of these figures part of a notable controversy, nor make MG controversial. Our section on his role as "an avid controversialist on contemporary issues" and one with a "sometimes controversial philosophy of mathematics" do not make him controversial, nor call for criticism of him -- least of all from general semantics, whose critique of him in their own terms may be as airtight as a Bolshevik critique of Bernstein & co., but is taken seriously only in own terms, and neither influential in terms of generally accepted knowledge, nor notable.
--Jerzy•t 08:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

     Huh, just picked up on the #Kordish [sic] section below!
--Jerzy•t 08:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Another psudonym is George Groth, now referenced with his review on the page.DougHill (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

The first published collection from Scientific American was - in the UK at least - called "Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions" and is missing from the list.

Leslie 17:11, 2009 May 19 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If he told you himself that he lived in Hastings-on-Hudson, then that answers the question I was about to ask. The blurb on the back of The Annotated Alice says he lived at the time (1960) in Dobbs Ferry, which is a different village, though only about a mile away. +Angr 07:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

     Earlier criticism ref'g Kodish (the actual spelling in both places), and my independent response, are at #(NPoV) above.
--Jerzy•t 08:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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).

I am in possession of a personal letter from Gardner in which he admits he is no mathematician. --Dogyo (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hoaxes 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 its (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 gulibility, even in presumably educated people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.101.67 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Erstwhile educated people"? You mean people who were once educated, but now are not? Have you a dictionary? You might want to look up "erstwhile" (and "gullability"). Please note that it's "its" NOT "it's", and "hoaxes" NOT "hoaxs". You go now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections made, note: I admit, in my comment, to past gulibility, and exposed my myself as a bad, really bad, speller, maybe gramatically inept as well. I hope this doesn't damage the reception of the comment's contribution, which I hoped would be corroborated, or refuted.

One-seventh area triangle

The article contains the following, under the heading "Pseudoscience": "In 2001 Gardner sent James Randi, another challenger of psuedo-science, the key to an old theorem asserted in 1960 by Hugo Steinhaus: the one-seventh area triangle found in an arbitrary trangle." I do not understand why the fact that Gardner told Randi about someone else's 40-year-old proof of a very old mathematical theorem (1) merits inclusion in Wikipedia, (2) belongs on this page, or (3) belongs in a section on "pseudoscience" on Gardner's page if it's here at all. If we listed every bit of mathematical correspondence Gardner has had with anyone then this page would be quite absurdly long. (The Gardner/Randi connection is already mentioned on the one-seventh area triangle page, where the reference makes a bit more sense.) Am I missing something? Gareth McCaughan (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it seems out of place. I guess that it might show that there was a link between Gardner and Randi which, in a rather original research kind of way, verifies Gardner's anti-pseudoscience credentials. It's a very interesting proof (thanks for the link!), but of course it is not required in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, can be deleted. Of interest only as an example of a positive result from examining the questionable. Two skeptics provide a slick insight. Even Richard Feynman was apparently dubious until he proved a particular case. The paragraph represents over-enthusiastic reciprocal linking.Rgdboer (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Needed addition

As an old fan (I'm 79) of Martin Gardner's, I just stumbled upon this page and noticed a big hole. A note in the discussion states, "Uriah Fuller redirects to Martin Gardner, without the slightest hint as to why this should make sense." Of course it makes sense, Martin Gardner wrote two marvelous pamphlets (I'd hate to call them books as they were 41 and 70 pages), Confessions of a Psychic and Further Confessions of a Psychic in 1975 and 1980 under the pseudonym Uriah Fuller. These definately deserve inclusion in any discussion of Martin Gardner.

I'm going to watch this article and if no one else decides to add the information, I'll do it when I have a little more time.

They seem to be available for download from a number of sources but fairly rare in print. One web site is offering both of them for $180!

Alweiss (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment about the redirect was just pointing out that this article should mention "Uriah Fuller" in order for the redirect to make sense. I see that Uriah Fuller is now a stub article, but perhaps it should be a redirect to here, with its contents in a section on this page. If you have a copy of the documents (I've never seen them), you might like to add a small amount of detail, and perhaps there are some useful references, although a quick search did not look promising. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Influence on mathematicians

Something the article does not mention. As one reads biographies and interviews with American mathematicians (and even some non-Americans and non-mathematicians), one name that repeatedly crops up as having inspired them is Martin Gardner and his columns in Scientific American. I think it would be great to find some sources and add something on this influence of Gardner's. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"introduced to a wider audience"

Not quite sure how to handle this or I'd just do it myself, but the article states:

The "Mathematical Games" column ran from 1956 to 1981 and introduced many subjects to a wider audience, including: (long list) In fact, isn't it so that in at least a couple of very important cases, the column was the forum where the topic was introduced in the first place, via the collaboration of the inventors:

• John Horton Conway's Game of Life
• Cryptanalysis/public key cryptography/trapdoor ciphers/the RSA-129 cryptographic challenge

Can someone corroborate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.124.3.3 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

and possibly polyominos?139.124.3.3 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the point? That the wording of the article should be changed? What do you propose?? 140.139.35.250 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but the Freecell page mentions Gardner and Mathematical Games. Is this an oversight, or is the consensus that the column was not a significant factor in the development and popularization of FreeCell type games?--174.7.11.91 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Links after passover

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scholars-and-others-pay-t
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/us/24gardner.html
• http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/rip_martin_gardner.html

--Nevit (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)