But we keep reading about how comedian Seth Meyer's roast of HWSNBN at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner is what caused He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named to decide to run. (See it here:)
And now some self-proclaimed "researchers" have claimed that Jon Stewart is the reason HWSNBN won. (And, again, let's be clear: He did NOT win.)
But at least these people have taken back their claim, citing a "computational error." Really? This is frankly hard to believe. How can you make an error like that in a paper that you know is going to be read and commented on all over America and the rest of the world? Here's a clue, so-called "researchers," something the rest of us learned in second grade: CHECK YOUR WORK.
Because, yeah, they had to take it all back.
But the article went through technical review, peer review, etc, etc, etc. Here's the truth, well, I shouldn't say that; let me say, instead, here's what some other "researcher" said about the process, as quoted in the article where I first heard about this:
As if coming up with a stupid metaphor of a cook at a restaurant making a mistake that might poison you really explains it...wait, yeah, maybe that's not so far off.
But this isn’t a case of bad science so much as it’s a reality of the scientific process itself. The paper had been through peer review, a process that science journalist Ryan F. Mandelbaum described Friday as “like a restaurant telling you that the food is cooked—it might still be awful or give you food poisoning.” (Mandelbaum was reporting on another tall claim that seems to have been taken back: that a researcher in the U.K. had decoded the infamously tricky Voynich manuscript). In this metaphor, researchers rushing to double-check, and then correct, their own work in the face of peer criticism—which is what happened in this case—are like cooks rushing out to your table midmeal, apologizing, and handing you a Pepto-Bismol themselves. (A paper that’s faulty due to fraud might involve a cook sprinkling in a laxative, and then fleeing the scene.)