[WWI] 1 rb paper critique

[iban]

jamie wrote:
> Yes , it would have been more interesting if they had looked at pilots 
> with very high scores who did not accrue the same level of 'fame'. For 
> example, how many web pages were devoted to Lowenhardt or Fonck as 
> compared to Richtofen or Guynemer? Far less successful pilots can 
> actually be more famous as well.

actually, jamie, they did plot that data (minus allied aces like fonck 
and guynemer).  they looked at the scores of *all* german aces, vs the 
number of google hits for those same guys.  the disparity between the 
fame of the highest scoring ace, and the fame of those with just a few 
kills less, is what first caught their eye.  it was precisely this that 
led to the development of a logarithmic equation for the relationship 
between fame and achievement instead of a linear one.

>
> I did not bother to address the original flurry of postings because 
> I've had experience of this misrepresentation of scientific articles 
> that occurs in the press. I belong to quite a few astronomy mailing 
> lists and it always amuses me when something new is published that for 
> days various news media will report on the publication and then on 
> those reports and how the later reports will go more and more astray 
> from the actual point. Sort of like passing a message verbally down a 
> line of people. The end message will bear little resemblance to what 
> was originally said.

very true.  authors say a+b has a definable relationship to c, and 
people end up arguing about why the authors are obvious idiots because 
any fool knows that x-y does not equal z. 

before you know it, the authors of a study on fame become infamous as 
the supposed proponents of a new heresy they've never even heard of, let 
alone stated. 

ironic, isn't it, given what their actual topic is?  :)


iban.