My Scientific Eponym: Somma’s Stochastic
I’ve been trying to figure out how to immortalize myself with my very own Scientific Eponym, and…
Eureka! Behold!
 Somma’s Stochastic |
Somma’s Stochastic states that the number and intensity of logical fallacies employed by a pundit in a debate is inversely proportional to the empirical evidence supporting their position.
Stated Simply The less science behind a pundit’s belief, the more BS they shovel to distort the issue.
To the left of the equation, we have good science with the -1 indicating it’s inverse relationship to the logical fallacies being put out to the right wing hand of the equation.
For example:
 |
Intelligent Design |
 |
“The fact that Microbiology and Organic Chemistry are too difficult for me to understand, means that all life must have actually been designed by an invisible old man in the sky who cannot be detected, quantified, logically inferred, or otherwise shown to exist.” (Argument from Ignorance, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) |
Another example:
|
Anthropogenic Global Warming Skepticism |
|
“So what if you have decades of data, ice core analyses, atmospheric measurements, and broad scientific consensus? It snowed in North Dakota today! Don’t you look silly!!!” (anecdotal fallacy) |
 |
Check out more Scientific Eponyms hosted at the Science Creative Quarterly.
Freakin’ awesome!!
My only complaint is that I didn’t immediately know the atom represented science — Is there a “more science-y” symbol than the atom to use?
Comment by Clint — January 13, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Good Question. Originally, I used a Flying Spaghetti Monster, representing the world of crackpot ideas, without a -1 and made them directly proportional, but it was confusing explaining it.
The atom is usually associated with Atheism, and this picture of the Atom isn’t very scientifically acurate. I’ve been looking for a symbol for science for some time now, but no luck yet.
Comment by ideonexus — January 13, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
I’m glad I didn’t come off as overly-critical. Anyway, I didn’t know about the athiesm-vs-atom association either. Honestly, I wonder: “What does Trivial Pursuit use?”
Comment by Clint — January 14, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Am. trying. to. fight pedantry. but. it. hurts. oh. god. noooo.
That’s not an equation since there is no equality between the terms on each side. You would need to add a constant of proportionality to turn it into an equation.
Oh, god that feel so much better now…
Comment by Kav — January 14, 2008 @ 6:34 am
@Clint- I think Trivial Pursuit uses a green oval with an “SN” inside?
“Atom” is definitely more science-y than “SN oval”.
What about a beaker or a microscope?
Comment by tgaw — January 14, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
I agree a beaker (http://site.steelcityauctions.com/beaker.jpg) would be pretty much cooler.
Comment by Nick Hamden — January 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Most of the examples I found agree with you Kav, but then I found on Wolfram’s Mathworld that I could express it using a -1. Of course, Wolfram was the only source on this notation, and he did write that awful book A New Kind of Science, which showed he knew nothing about chaos theory, fractals, or automata, but he’s gotta be right about this -1 thing right???
Comment by ideonexus — January 14, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Trivial Pursuit has symbols on the BOARD, but don’t go to flickr or google images looking for it…. I tried. It probably sucks though, so nevermind. hehe.
Comment by Clint — January 14, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
Nothing says “science” quite like the “scientist”.
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 15, 2008 @ 1:06 am
Stupid wordpress… Check my interpretation here:
(http://www.flavamade.com/images/sommas_stochastic.jpg)
-BMF
Comment by BMF — January 15, 2008 @ 1:08 am
Parenthesis make it non-clickable:
http://www.flavamade.com/images/sommas_stochastic.jpg
Comment by Clint — January 15, 2008 @ 1:47 am
Ahahahahaha that’s funny!
Comment by Clint — January 15, 2008 @ 1:47 am
Yeah the notation is fine, it’s just not an equation.
Comment by Kav — January 15, 2008 @ 7:36 am
[…] January 15, 2008 My friend BMF photoshopped up the following version of my Somma’s Stochastic Eponym following a comment thread about what symbol best represents science, since the atom caused some […]
Pingback by Somma’s Stochastic Revised « ideonexus — January 15, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
[…] Somma’s Stochastic seems rinky-dink compared to this list of other laws in the vein of Murphy’s and […]
Pingback by Science Etcetera Venusday, 20080122 « ideonexus — January 22, 2008 @ 5:15 am
[…] I thought I was so cool coming up with “Somma’s Stochaistic,” the idea that science is inversely proportional to […]
Pingback by Bayesian Probability Beat Somma’s Stochaistic | ideonexus.com — February 3, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
He can be shown to exist w/ rational evidence. Empirical evidence doesnt explain where things come from, it only explains how they work. Theories (based on rational evidence) explains where things come from.
Comment by Andrew — September 11, 2012 @ 3:27 pm