Stubborn Scientists
March 12, 2010 5:00 PM Subscribe
What are some famous examples of stubborn scientists or natural philosophers? People that held onto a theory even after there was mounting evidence that they were wrong. Bonus points if they went out of their way to smear other scientists.
Gerald Pollack, who doesn't believe cells have plasma membranes, is a pretty good example-- though AFAIK he doesn't have a reputation for smearing other scientists. His self-published book _Cells, Gels, and the Engines of Life_ is controversial, to say the least.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 5:17 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 5:17 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Einstein was famously reluctant to give credence to the Copenhagen school's theory of quantum mechanics. It was in reference to which that he said "God does not play at dice."
posted by adamrice at 5:22 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by adamrice at 5:22 PM on March 12, 2010
On preview, kind of what adamrice said.
The early history of quantum mechanics is replete with people of the prominence of Einstein pooh-poohing Bohr's and Bohr's allies sub-atomic notions. Turns out, according to what many physicists believe today, in classic/quantum mechanical fashion, both sides of that disagreement were right, and both, at the same time, wrong.
posted by paulsc at 5:26 PM on March 12, 2010
The early history of quantum mechanics is replete with people of the prominence of Einstein pooh-poohing Bohr's and Bohr's allies sub-atomic notions. Turns out, according to what many physicists believe today, in classic/quantum mechanical fashion, both sides of that disagreement were right, and both, at the same time, wrong.
posted by paulsc at 5:26 PM on March 12, 2010
Modern example: Andrew Wakefield. His 1998 paper in The Lancet pushed the theory that the MMR vaccines cause autism. The paper has since been retracted by the The Lancet, in the face of charges of falsified data. A damning body of evidence from other researchers has discredited the theory, but Wakefield clings to it.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 5:34 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 5:34 PM on March 12, 2010
Joseph Priestley most famously refused to give up phlogiston theory.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is probably a book you'll want to read if you haven't done so already. It's all about the topic of how theories change.
posted by Sova at 5:37 PM on March 12, 2010
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is probably a book you'll want to read if you haven't done so already. It's all about the topic of how theories change.
posted by Sova at 5:37 PM on March 12, 2010
Fred Hoyle, proponent of the Steady State theory of the Universe, and opponent of the Big Bang theory, even though he invented the term.
posted by lukemeister at 5:39 PM on March 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by lukemeister at 5:39 PM on March 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Heh. And I was going to add what paulsc said - this doesn't quite apply because neither ontology (Copenhagen or Everett) was proved wrong (and short of quantum suicide, neither ontology is provable wrong if the other one is right). That debate still rages on today.
But it's not like Bohr didn't do his own share of skewering of the other view himself...
Spoiler: that "undescribably stupid" view turned out to be the one most popular today among cosmologists (Hawking included)
posted by qvantamon at 5:41 PM on March 12, 2010
But it's not like Bohr didn't do his own share of skewering of the other view himself...
Spoiler: that "undescribably stupid" view turned out to be the one most popular today among cosmologists (Hawking included)
posted by qvantamon at 5:41 PM on March 12, 2010
Henry Heimleich, famous for the Heimleich manouver, is infamous for promoting its use in drownings. And for promoting the use of malaria as a cure for HIV infection.
Here is the short version on Wikipedia.
posted by SLC Mom at 5:45 PM on March 12, 2010
Here is the short version on Wikipedia.
posted by SLC Mom at 5:45 PM on March 12, 2010
The archetype of this would likely be Philip Henry Gosse, whose fundamentalist beliefs were in contrast to his pioneering scientific work with sea life. Believing that the earth was only a few thousand years old, he would not believe the fossil record, and argued extensively with Darwin. Gosse's book - Omphalos: an attempt to untie the geological knot - was widely ridiculed. I'm not sure if Gosse attacked other scientists; rather, he withdrew more into his studies after the book was a failure.
I hesitate to call the free energy cranks "scientists", though they are often both stubborn and attack opponents.
posted by scruss at 5:47 PM on March 12, 2010
I hesitate to call the free energy cranks "scientists", though they are often both stubborn and attack opponents.
posted by scruss at 5:47 PM on March 12, 2010
Here's some more.
Peter Duesberg is a notorious AIDS-denier. What makes it all the more difficult to reconcile is that the guy had a long and distinguished resume as a scientist before he got on that track.
The Ghost Map is a book about the London cholera epidemic of 1854, and how it led to the acceptance of the germ theory of disease. But not without a lot of pushback from the scientific community, which embraced the "miasma theory" of disease. John Snow, who came up with the germ theory, was widely belittled by the scientific establishment at the time, not least by the president of London's Board of Health, Edwin Chadwick.
posted by adamrice at 6:09 PM on March 12, 2010
Peter Duesberg is a notorious AIDS-denier. What makes it all the more difficult to reconcile is that the guy had a long and distinguished resume as a scientist before he got on that track.
The Ghost Map is a book about the London cholera epidemic of 1854, and how it led to the acceptance of the germ theory of disease. But not without a lot of pushback from the scientific community, which embraced the "miasma theory" of disease. John Snow, who came up with the germ theory, was widely belittled by the scientific establishment at the time, not least by the president of London's Board of Health, Edwin Chadwick.
posted by adamrice at 6:09 PM on March 12, 2010
The Catholic Church (and many, many scientists of the time) versus Galileo over Copernican astronomy, among other things
posted by sallybrown at 6:10 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 6:10 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann and their dubious announcement of cold fusion fit the bill quite well.
posted by TBAcceptor at 6:25 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by TBAcceptor at 6:25 PM on March 12, 2010
If I remember correctly, there was a lot of nastiness of the sort you're talking about surrounding the proposal of "prions" as a cause of certain unusual diseases. They were very controversial -- infectious agents with almost magical properties. Every known infectious agent had RNA/DNA, and could be destroyed by a certain range of UV/heat/chemicals/etc and was generally limited to a certain range of sizes. Prions were claimed to violate all of these rules. For example, from Wikipedia: "134°C (274°F) for 18 minutes in a pressurized steam autoclave may not be enough to deactivate the agent of disease".
Stanley Prusiner was the main proponent and investigator of the theory in the early 80s. He turned out to be right and won the Nobel prize in 97. But I don't know who the big naysayers were, which is what you seem to be looking for.
posted by madmethods at 6:26 PM on March 12, 2010
Stanley Prusiner was the main proponent and investigator of the theory in the early 80s. He turned out to be right and won the Nobel prize in 97. But I don't know who the big naysayers were, which is what you seem to be looking for.
posted by madmethods at 6:26 PM on March 12, 2010
Arthur Evans is a classic example of this kind of thing, up to and including him using his influence to ruin people who disagreed with him.
A more recent example is Noam Chomsky. His influence is fading now, but for quite a while it was professional death for a linguist to disagree with him.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:28 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
A more recent example is Noam Chomsky. His influence is fading now, but for quite a while it was professional death for a linguist to disagree with him.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:28 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Daniel Barringer convinced others scientists that Meteor Crater was formed by a meteorite, and not a volcanic explosion as previously thought.
posted by mnemonic at 6:32 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by mnemonic at 6:32 PM on March 12, 2010
The Wikipedia article doesn't really talk about that aspect of Evans. He insisted that the Minoan civilization was a unique cultural branch, with its own language and writing. As others began to suggest that it was actually Mycenean Greek (at least in its later stages), he treated them as if they were heretics.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:32 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:32 PM on March 12, 2010
Louis Agassiz was a great natural scientist (biologist / geologist) who pioneered work on glacial theory -- that the periodic increase and decrease of continental scale glaciers caused catastrophic changes on earth. There was a ton of push back (sorry I don't have any names) from established geologists who argued that the out of place boulders strewn across historic glacial fields were a result of the great flood. So Agassiz' theory on catastrophic glacial geology was rejected by many of his contemporaries.
Ironic, then, that Agassiz was probably the last great biologist to argue strenuously against Darwin. He was a fervent believer in intelligent design.
posted by one_bean at 6:41 PM on March 12, 2010
Ironic, then, that Agassiz was probably the last great biologist to argue strenuously against Darwin. He was a fervent believer in intelligent design.
posted by one_bean at 6:41 PM on March 12, 2010
Charles Socarides vehemently maintained that homosexuality was a mental illness until his death in 2005, long after the APA abandoned this stance and removed it entirely from the DSM. His beliefs went from mainstream (in the 60s), to so rejected by his professional community (if not popular culture) that he was unable to find a legit academic publisher for his later works.
You'll want to hear the whole story here, including his own words (and those of his embittered widow).
posted by availablelight at 6:50 PM on March 12, 2010
You'll want to hear the whole story here, including his own words (and those of his embittered widow).
posted by availablelight at 6:50 PM on March 12, 2010
This amazing article about scurvy includes a dramatic example of bad science killing people. It might not be exactly what you want. It does have scientists being very wrong but it was probably more out of ignorance than stubbornness.
A Nobel prize was awarded for the theory that parasitic worms cause stomach cancer (scroll down to "Parasite Theory").
posted by chairface at 6:56 PM on March 12, 2010
A Nobel prize was awarded for the theory that parasitic worms cause stomach cancer (scroll down to "Parasite Theory").
posted by chairface at 6:56 PM on March 12, 2010
On second reading, the Wiki article sounds like it may have been written by a fan of, well, Charles Socarides. Here's the NYT obit** that outlines some of what is revealed in the TAL episode, in terms of his embittered refusal to change his beliefs as the field changed around him.
**(His wife ceased reading the NYT after this was published.)
posted by availablelight at 6:58 PM on March 12, 2010
**(His wife ceased reading the NYT after this was published.)
posted by availablelight at 6:58 PM on March 12, 2010
Barringer was right about Meteor Crater being due to an impact.
posted by lukemeister at 7:03 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by lukemeister at 7:03 PM on March 12, 2010
Edison, power, DC, incorrect, electrocuted an elephant, tried to discredit Tesla.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:54 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Afroblanco at 7:54 PM on March 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh, Percival Lowell! He was an astronomer credited for part of the discovery of Pluto, but he was also totally obsessed with the idea that intelligent life existed on Mars, and died still believing life existed.
Lowell cited the existence of polar icecaps on Mars as proof of water, but his main evidence came from extensive canals he saw on the surface of Mars, which Lowell believed were irrigation channels. He wasn't alone in this belief by any means, but no other astronomer was able to see the canals that Lowell saw and mapped with such clarity. Lowell and a couple of other astronomers documented the existence of canals on the surface of Mars, and Lowell believed those canals were irrigation systems built by Martians. Lowell made extensive maps of these canals, in more detail than any other astronomers. No one else was able to see these intricate canals except Lowell.
Anyway, the kinda crazy part of this story is that Lowell also saw strange spoke patterns on the surface of Venus, which escaped other astronomer's notice. But it turns out that what he actually might have been seeing were the blood vessels on his own eye, because he had the magnification on his telescope turned up too high.
posted by ajarbaday at 8:17 PM on March 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Lowell cited the existence of polar icecaps on Mars as proof of water, but his main evidence came from extensive canals he saw on the surface of Mars, which Lowell believed were irrigation channels. He wasn't alone in this belief by any means, but no other astronomer was able to see the canals that Lowell saw and mapped with such clarity. Lowell and a couple of other astronomers documented the existence of canals on the surface of Mars, and Lowell believed those canals were irrigation systems built by Martians. Lowell made extensive maps of these canals, in more detail than any other astronomers. No one else was able to see these intricate canals except Lowell.
Anyway, the kinda crazy part of this story is that Lowell also saw strange spoke patterns on the surface of Venus, which escaped other astronomer's notice. But it turns out that what he actually might have been seeing were the blood vessels on his own eye, because he had the magnification on his telescope turned up too high.
posted by ajarbaday at 8:17 PM on March 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Kitasato Shibasaburō, the transmission and bacterium of the bubonic plague, trashed the real discoverer Yersin and refused to acknowledge his error.
posted by smoke at 9:39 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by smoke at 9:39 PM on March 12, 2010
Richard Owens response to Darwins theory of natural selection is pretty famous in biological circles. If I recall correctly, his statue was finally removed from the Museum of Natural History in London last year to be replaced by one of Darwin.
posted by scodger at 9:55 PM on March 12, 2010
posted by scodger at 9:55 PM on March 12, 2010
Second vote for Edison. He was very wrong about how to make an electric light for a long time, then got it. His attacks on Tesla are just what you are looking for.
posted by eccnineten at 4:23 AM on March 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by eccnineten at 4:23 AM on March 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
The resistance to Georg Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was pretty brutal (today we would consider Cantor to be right, although I've never met a non-mathematician who wouldn't still argue about it--it really is a counter-intuitive idea). From the Wikipedia page:
The objections to his work were occasionally fierce: Poincaré referred to Cantor's ideas as a "grave disease" infecting the discipline of mathematics, and Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth." Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory," which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong".posted by anaelith at 5:11 AM on March 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
« Older I'm looking for an online photo album solution... | What should I do with a spare mobile phone? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
This quote from sociobiology proponent Steven Pinker claims bad faith on the part of opponents:
Since 1975, when Lewontin and others published their "Against Sociobiology" manifesto claiming that such attempts were politically reactionary and encouraged eugenics and Nazism, the attacks have recycled the same accusations and tactics: fuzzy scare words ("atomism," "reductionism," "determinism"), misreportings and doctored quotations, shameless straw-manning, empty name-calling ("vulgar," "pop"), political smears, personal innuendo, and most of all, the scientific snow job: seemingly damaging technical findings that general readers are unlikely to know about and hence unlikely to recognize as red herrings.(Note 3)
I don't have the chops to say whose arguments are stronger, so I couldn't begin to have a view on who is "wrong", but the disputes between the scientists involved seem ugly enough to merit further investigation
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:15 PM on March 12, 2010