It’s a cliche that kookdom is filled with brilliant scientists outside of their expertise, but its definitely not what I observe when I look at scientific history.
Lots of kook inventors, Faraday, and lots of chemical and life and social scientists who start out correct but ignored or rejected and gradually embrace more extreme, attention-getting, but exaggerated and false versions of their initial thesis as a result of years avoiding their peers and interacting primarily with those members of the public who will act as an echo chamber.
Then there are the free energy and anti-gravity crowds. They seem to be born that way.
I’m specifically thinking of Linus Pauling with his theories about Vitamin C curing cancer and a former Nobel winning physicist (can’t remember who) doing a debunking of global warming based on some flaky arguments. Of course Wikipedia claims that Pauling may not have been completely out to lunch (though I don’t really trust Wikipedia when it comes to junk science). And I don’t really have any hard numbers, just knowledge of a couple cases and some anecdotes from scientists complaining about the tendency of Nobel winners to turn crackpot.
I suppose this could underline the danger I was mentioning about working with limited evidence as I fell victim in my very own example of it!
It’s a cliche that kookdom is filled with brilliant scientists outside of their expertise, but its definitely not what I observe when I look at scientific history.
Lots of kook inventors, Faraday, and lots of chemical and life and social scientists who start out correct but ignored or rejected and gradually embrace more extreme, attention-getting, but exaggerated and false versions of their initial thesis as a result of years avoiding their peers and interacting primarily with those members of the public who will act as an echo chamber.
Then there are the free energy and anti-gravity crowds. They seem to be born that way.
I should clarify.
I’m specifically thinking of Linus Pauling with his theories about Vitamin C curing cancer and a former Nobel winning physicist (can’t remember who) doing a debunking of global warming based on some flaky arguments. Of course Wikipedia claims that Pauling may not have been completely out to lunch (though I don’t really trust Wikipedia when it comes to junk science). And I don’t really have any hard numbers, just knowledge of a couple cases and some anecdotes from scientists complaining about the tendency of Nobel winners to turn crackpot.
I suppose this could underline the danger I was mentioning about working with limited evidence as I fell victim in my very own example of it!