Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Stepping out
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2006 :  10:59:36  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Perhaps the most famous example of an expert stepping out of his/her field to laughable consequences is that of Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel Laureate (in chemistry and peace), who left his expertise in chemistry behind when he delved into medicine by claiming that massive doses of vitamin C could cure just about any disease. "Orthomolecular medicine" is today a field in which much money is wasted trying to bring Pauling's hype to real life.

In the December, 2006, issue of Discover magazine, I was interested in "The All-Time Essential Reading List," which bills itself as "the 25 greatest science books ever written." I expected the introduction to be about what makes a great science book great, but was instead treated to an essay about Kary B. Mullis' (Nobel prize for the polymerase chain reaction) favorite "science" books, which included these paragraphs:
Dean Radin's book, Entangled Minds, extends this diabolical puzzle to extrasensory perception. ESP usually implies people sensing what has happened to a loved one thousands of miles away, but Radin describes something different: mind influencing matter. For the Global Consciousness Project, scientists set up 36 computer programs running separately, in different labs scattered around the earth, whose job is to generate random numbers. They do this by timing the decay of radioactive nuclei, which any physicist will agree occurs at random. Yet the results seem to be inexplicably affected by worldwide psychological reactions, like the ones sparked by the horrible events of 9/11. That is, they become less random—an effect analogous to a coin toss turning up heads many, many times in a row. Radin describes this as an unavoidable consequence of the interconnected, entangled physical reality we live in. I know Radin, and I know he's not intentionally fooling himself or anybody else.

Books like Radin's doggedly pursue scientific evidence for ideas that have been widely, but unreasonably, discredited for decades, or even centuries. Fortunately, scientists (at least in the Western world) no longer get confined to quarters or excommunicated for their books. But when an author puts himself on the line by embracing an unfashionable idea, even though he is guaranteed to generate scorn or indifference, this should somehow be recognized.
Good grief. "...I know he's not intentionally fooling himself or anybody else." The first line of defense among the woo-woo set. Of course Radin isn't intentionally fooling himself, but there are plenty of ways in which he is unintentionally fooling himself, and from what I've read about the GCP, he's assumed his conclusion and is doing little more than cherry-picking data to fit - not science. Which makes Mullis' comment about it being an "unfashionable idea" ridiculous.

Mullis closes with praise for a book about the career of Peter Duesberg without once mentioning Duesberg's denial that HIV causes AIDS. Mullis hails the book as documenting the single example of a scientist changing his mind (Duesberg's denial of his own oncogene work in cancer), but it seems to me that Duesberg's AIDS stance simply shows him to be in favor of contradiction of the mainstream, and not some sort of scientific hero.

Mullis' introduction can be found here on the Web, and luckily neither Radin nor Duesberg appear in the actual list (which was put together by Discover editors, not Mullis), nor in the "honorable mentions" (which does include Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams).

The lesson to be learned, of course, is that one shouldn't trust a Nobel Laureate to necessarily be able to identify books on science.

Anyone else have any examples of the tremendous gaffs possible when Nobel winners (or other experts) step out of their fields?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2006 :  12:58:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Dr. Manuel

For those of you who don't know who this is consider yourselves lucky.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2006 :  13:06:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
I just live this statement from Dave's quoted passage:

quote:
Books like Radin's doggedly pursue scientific evidence for ideas that have been widely, but unreasonably, discredited for decades, or even centuries.


"Unreasonably" discredited? How has ESP been unreasonably discredited???? Thanks for reminding me why I don't read that pop-science rag.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 12/05/2006 13:06:46
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2006 :  13:39:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
I should have hit up Wikipedia, earlier. Mullis
...also denigrates concern about global warming, denying that it is known to be human caused, and disagrees with the idea that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) cause ozone depletion.

Mullis became known to a wider public as a potential forensic DNA analyst and witness for the defense in the OJ Simpson trial. News coverage of Mullis, his activities, and his background was extensive, and the defense moved to prevent cross-examination about his personal life including "social relationships, domestic discord and use of controlled substances."...
I don't remember ever hearing about him before.

And yeah, furshur, Dr. Manuel is another good example.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2006 :  14:23:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
Well what are you gonna do about those surfer boys?

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2006 :  22:42:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Seems the Nobel nominating and/or voting committees are not as literate in science as one would suppose. Mullis is famous infamous among the HIV-AIDS deniers.

DISSENTING ON AIDS THE CASE AGAINST THE HIV-CAUSES-AIDS HYPOTHESIS; By Kary B. Mullis, Phillip E. Johnson & Charles A. Thomas Jr.; The San Diego Union-Tribune 15 May 1994
quote:
One AIDS dissident, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction, was asked to state which argument most strongly convinced him that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. Mullis replied: "The fact that there's no evidence for it."


Then of course we have the Nobel Prize winner, Wangari Maathai. Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created.

And the Presentation speech by the Nobel organization doesn't add to their credibility in science.
quote:
Women have moreover been particularly hard hit by Africa's HIV/AIDS epidemic. No doubt Wangari Maathai will in the years ahead be at the forefront of Africa's fight against HIV/AIDS.


[irony meter implodes]


Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/09/2006 22:43:54
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2006 :  23:20:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
My nomination is British-born American physicist, transistor co-inventor, Nobel laureate, racist, eugenicist, and sperm-bank donor, William Shockley. He stepped way out of his field, off into the deep end of Nazi-style racism.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000