Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

“crackpots” who were right

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Here is something I've run into yesterday, and what had me think of ATS instantly. So I would love to share it with you guys and gals:

crackpots who were right

The blog post series is about 17 (what I would consider mainstream) scientists and researchers struggling with getting their ideas accepted by the scientific community (or the public in general).

I personally quite enjoyed the read, recognized a few of the listed cases, learned about a few more.

ps:
And then I've had this totally crazy idea. What if there was a price for unusual/original research, where the most promising one of the more "deviant" papers/publications would be selected for more thorough review, verification, replication? Nah, just kidding




posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


I suppose if scientist's findings/papers are to be deemed to have merit purely based on peer review then it's no wonder we haven't gotten very far.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 



Nor have I mentioned Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who showed that stars above a certain size would eventually collapse to form black holes at a time when others did not believe they could really exist. The lambasting he got from Eddington almost ended his brilliant career. Then there was Joseph Goldberger who showed that Pellagra is a disease caused by dietary deficiency but for political reasons his opponents continued to claim it was infectious. Others on my list are William Harvey for blood circulation, Doppler for light frequency shifts, Peyton Rous for showing viruses can cause cancer, Boltzmann, Dalton, Tesla, Alverez, Margulis, Krebs, and on and on. All of them had to fight against resistance before their ground breaking work gained the recognition it deserved.
There are many more who have merely had an important paper rejected. In fact it is hard to know the real extent of the problem because only the most important stories get told in the history of science. My guess is that these people represent the tip of a large iceberg most of which lies hidden below the threshold it takes for historians to take note.


I hate to say this but allot of research follows or is directed by money and funding succinctly stated by "follow the money".

Religion in the west was once the blockade of progress in scientific endeavors (dark ages ring a bell?) now it is more a vested corporate blockage if some of the threads at ATS are to be believed, no?

The investors expect a return on their money and time.. Not pure or good science in some cases, especially if you go against some vested interest or put another way TPTB.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Fortunately there is also so called basic or pure research, usually funded by public (state). Where you can do all kinds of stuff as long as your science is sound. Of course popular stuff is preferred. But that is human nature I guess, group behavior, risk minimization... not exclusive to science. Most of the researchers in mentioned the blog worked in scientific institutions e.g..



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

InTheLight
reply to post by moebius
 


I suppose if scientist's findings/papers are to be deemed to have merit purely based on peer review then it's no wonder we haven't gotten very far.


The peer review system isn't perfect. It definitely has its problems. The biggest of which is unrealistic expectations far and above what it was meant to do and be. But it's the only system we have presently, and overrall, it at least endeavors to weed out the bad science, and publish the good. It just doesn't always work the way, even those inside of it would like, but it does have its merits, along with its downside.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Klassified

InTheLight
reply to post by moebius
 


I suppose if scientist's findings/papers are to be deemed to have merit purely based on peer review then it's no wonder we haven't gotten very far.


The peer review system isn't perfect. It definitely has its problems. The biggest of which is unrealistic expectations far and above what it was meant to do and be. But it's the only system we have presently, and overrall, it at least endeavors to weed out the bad science, and publish the good. It just doesn't always work the way, even those inside of it would like, but it does have its merits, along with its downside.


Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 



New ideas and ways undermine the status and standing. Once old ways idea are overturned, even if by old truth, the people that made hay on the old ways cant even call themselves old school without looking irrelevant. That's why the smart ones, smart industry for example, stay on the cutting edge, adapt, change and survive while the old hard heads defend the old ways and die off or become niche.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Those of us who are serious about conspiracy theory can empathize with these scientists. Long before 9/11 I had read enough to know that some US Presidents and VPs had been involved with illegal activity. The 80's were a rough time for those critical of government. Right wing Republicans dominated the political landscape and the media tagged behind like a lost puppy.

Telling people that Bush Sr, was involved in Iran/Contra and that Ollie North were exchanging guns for drugs and secretly dealing with Iran led to some pretty harsh words. You were treated like a leper for challenging the established norms of thinking the White House could NEVER get involved in things like that.

9/11 was the same deal, especially right after the event. It was as if everyone jettisoned their sense of logic for the sake of preserving a public myth. Fortunately, most Americans and the world now recognize the OS is far from a truthful and complete accounting of what happened that day.

Sad fact is most people don't want to take the time to learn about things for themselves and are far too willing to accept the establishment view. This is true in the sciences as well. As 727sky sagely mentioned there is often an economic stake in what the "truth" is thought to be.

Most people just want acceptance and are willing to cast aside any doubts in favor of not being isolated. It's a risky proposition to go out on a limb and proclaim a new theory or to challenge the official version of events. Many of us know from personal experience, it can even isolate you from family members. It's a large price to pay but there is no price too great to pay for the truth. Without it we are adrift in a sea of lies and assumptions and we acquire the equivalent of seasickness - there is an ever-moving horizon and nothing solid beneath our feet. Some simply cannot live that way, myself included.

Wonderful article! Thanks for posting it.
edit on 16-12-2013 by Asktheanimals because: corrections



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 



Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.

I understand what you're saying. Early this year, I did a thread on peer review. You might find it interesting. The thread didn't garner much fanfare, but I learned some things from the responses it did get.
Faith, Fantasy, and the Protean Peer Review Process



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Klassified
reply to post by InTheLight
 



Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.

I understand what you're saying. Early this year, I did a thread on peer review. You might find it interesting. The thread didn't garner much fanfare, but I learned some things from the responses it did get.
Faith, Fantasy, and the Protean Peer Review Process


Thanks, I'll read through it when I find some time...I always try to keep an open mind.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Klassified
reply to post by InTheLight
 



Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.

I understand what you're saying. Early this year, I did a thread on peer review. You might find it interesting. The thread didn't garner much fanfare, but I learned some things from the responses it did get.
Faith, Fantasy, and the Protean Peer Review Process


Thanks, I'll read through it when I find some time...I always try to keep an open mind.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

moebius


ps:
And then I've had this totally crazy idea. What if there was a price for unusual/original research, where the most promising one of the more "deviant" papers/publications would be selected for more thorough review, verification, replication? Nah, just kidding



What are you going to do. Nuggets of truth and fine jewels have been known to be found in the "deviant" section or had their time there. But there is simply a plethora of nonsense out their trying to pass itself off and whining about being shunted to the recycle bin where it belongs. Having said that, yes bull crap often does rise to the surface, the top, and hardens into a jell know as orthodoxy. There is also an orthodoxy of the alternative. You see a good deal of it here on ATS.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   





new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join