Raghu disagrees with my claim that bedtime books don’t work, and he suggests Matthew Walker as an adjudicator for a possible debate on the topic. I suppose that Walker would be unseeded in the “disgraced scientists” category—he can’t really compete with the Pizzagate guy, the Harvard primatologist, the shredder guy, the ESP dude, etc.
Jonathan argues in favor of the singer:
Once on a rainy vacation in Bermuda, the hotel, trying deperately to think of things to give their guests to do, came up with a napkin folding class. I took it and realized that I really don’t know enough about folding. I once had an origami book as an 8 year old but it was too complicated for me. Lisa Lisa was an expert on folding sweaters at Benetton. I could stand to learn some more.
Folding is a pleasant mathematical topic, kind of like knot theory but without the tangles, so yeah, let’s go for Lisa.
Today’s matchup
The Hit King and second-seeded Alleged tax cheat has a podcast, and it looks as horrible as you’d imagine: “The show will post six times per week and feature Rose making picks in baseball, football, basketball, horse racing, and other sports.” But it seems that everybody has a podcast now, so we can’t use that to exclude him from our Hall of Speakers Fame.
Our other option is the co-creator of the Three Laws of Robotics, famous for prolific fiction and nonfiction writing, clever plots, psychohistory, and the sense of wonder.
Either of our two contestants could have a lot of fascinating stories to tell—as long as Rose doesn’t just stand up there and sign baseballs and Asimov doesn’t paw the women in his proximity. What do you think?
Judging on his writings I would go full Asimov, but I read somewhere that Darius Dust was a mostly autobiographical character. Maybe it will be better to have the opportunity to ask Rose what’s his take on the “hot hand”.
My wife once had dinner with Isaac Asimov and hates Pete Rose. So I’ll go with Rose.
Slightly more seriously, if Rose were Hari Seldon, he’d be an excellent gambler, except that he’d probably ruin it by running his big mouth and subverting the predictions of psychohistory. Statistics question: is a baseball team of 26 (plus coaches, trainers, etc.) a large enough ensemble for psychohistory to work? Does the presence of another team double the sample size or not? Pick whomever would better answer these questions: Rose or Asimov (or possibly Gelman.)
When I was an adolescent, I read a periodical called The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Dr. Asimov had a monthly feature article and would expound on some real science issue. The articles were engaging, clear, and advanced my understanding. On youtube, he speaks clearly and rationally. No snark, no witty b.s. Dr. Asimov was a great mind and a great speaker. Pete Rose was a great athlete but a flawed public figure; I remember his denigration of his son. Isaac, Isaac, Isaac!
I resemble the remarks of oncodoc, as I was about to write almost exactly the same thing. Sixty years later I remember “A Piece of Pi”, the one about imaginary numbers, and the test he came up with to find the chemist among “To Tell The Truth” contestants: hold up a sign that said UNIONIZED. Non-chemists will say union-ized, a chemist will say un-ionized. He would give a great talk.
I’ve heard Pete Rose talk. Not pretty.
Sports betting scandals are pretty great. Maybe with gambling legalization there’s enough money that we’ll get some sort of action here. We could get in on the ground floor with a Pete Rose seminar!
That said there’s probably enough Pete Rose material out there. There’s a book, some recent ESPN stuff, what looks like a reality TV show. I really wouldn’t want Pete stealing the spotlight from some up-and-coming tricksters. Also he might be outta the price range (from Wikipedia):
> As of March 2014, Rose earns more than $1,000,000 annually from many paid public appearances and autograph signings.
Asimov it is!
Pete Rose can’t get into the Hall of Fame. He shouldn’t get this gig as a consolation prize.
Another F&SF reader from years ago wants Asimov.