The latest (Dec. 9, 2006) issue of New Scientist has a remarkably stupid series of articles written by so-called "lone voices." Who are these "lone voices" and why do they get a soapbox in New Scientist? Here's what the editors say, ...Science works by consensus, right? Well, not entirely. Throughout the history of scientific endeavour there has been a scattering of people who, for good or ill, have swum against the tide.The answer to that one is easy. Yes, we can afford to be without some of them; notably, the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) John Baumgardner.
In this special series of premium articles, we look at these lone voices and what they have brought to our understanding of the world. Harry Collins (see How we know what we know) and Bob Park (see Watch out for the UFOs) start by offering their ideas on how to distinguish true genius from the ravings of a crank.
We then speak to five people who represent very different kinds of outsider: a star who led the pack (David Deutsch, free feature: At play in the multiverse); a non-scientist making bigger waves than the professionals (Jane Elliott, An unforgettable lesson); an experimentalist who put his own health on the line to get heard (Barry Marshall, Hard to swallow); a scientist doing respected work in the context of unlikely beliefs (John Baumgardner, God said, let the dry land appear…); and a genius who is causing a stir outside his original field (Brian Josephson, Take nobody's world for it).
Each offers a unique challenge to the scientific status quo. Can we afford to be without any of them?
There's a big difference between "lone voices," or mavericks, and kooks. Kooks are genuine out-to-lunch, delusional pseudoscientists who should be ignored. It's easy to recognize kooks because their ideas conflict with fundamental, well-established principles of science.
Take YEC's for example. They aren't working on the frontiers of science where several different explanations are possible. Instead, they are advocating the overthrow of physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and biology because all of these sciences refute the idea that the world is only 10,000 years old. Young Earth Creationism is not a clever idea that the scientific establishment is suppressing because they might lose their grants. It is a genuine idiotic idea that only the most delusional Christian would believe. It's about as rational as believing that the moon landings were faked.
John Baumgardner is a genuine scientist with a Ph.D. in geophysics but he's still a kook. If New Scientist can't tell the difference between someone who's lost all credibility in the scientific community and someone who takes an unorthodox, but rational, position, then we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.
There have been plenty of mavericks in science as the lead editorial in New Scientist points out ...
TIME was when all scientists were outsiders. Self-funded or backed by a rich benefactor, they pursued their often wild ideas in home-built labs with no one to answer to but themselves. From Nicolaus Copernicus to Charles Darwin, they were so successful that it's hard to imagine what modern science would be like without them.The concept is valid. There have been genuine maverick scientists who swam against the tide and won over the scientific community after a hard-fought battle. Peter Mitchell, Lynn Margulis, Carl Woese, and Stephen Jay Gould are good examples. Unfortunately, the editors of New Scientist have destroyed what little credibility they had left by picking Charles Dawrin as an example. What were they thinking? Darwin was 100% establishment. Within a couple of years of publishing Origin of Species, the scientific/intellectual community had been converted. He had a good idea, he spoke, they listened.
Their isolated, largely unaccountable ways now seem the antithesis of modern science, with consensus and peer review at its very heart. Yet the "outsider" tradition persists. Think of Alfred Wegener, the father of plate tectonics and, more controversially, of Gaia theorist James Lovelock. Both pursued their theories in the face of strong opposition from their peers.
Such mavericks can be crucial to progress (see Lone Voices), but are they a dying breed?
In discussions like this it's worth keeping in mind that there have been many more mavericks than we can recall. Most of them are very forgettable because they were wrong.
With this issue, New Scientist has shown us that it should be moved from the science section of good bookstores to the supermarket check-out counter.
What is Josephson doing in that list? Is that for his support of homeopathy?
ReplyDeleteWhat about James Lovelock,he swam against the tide and is now accepted by many.
ReplyDeleteStephen Jay Gould
ReplyDeleteGould is maverick for what? Punctuated equilbria? That wasn't even his idea -- he gave it a clever name, but Niles Eldredge did the heavy lifting..
Stephen Jay Gould advocated several ideas that were outside of the mainstream scientific consensus.
ReplyDeletePunctuated equilibria was one. Species selection was another. But perhaps the most important was his attack on panadaptationism and the hardening of the Modern Synthesis. Gould was a pluralist before it was popular.
You don't have to be the sole originator of an idea to be a maverick. You just have to be a strong advocate in the face of severe opposition.
BTW, in the years following the first publications on punctuated equilibria, Gould did much more of the heavy lifting than Eldredge. The modern Theory of Punctuated Equilibria is far different than what Eldredge (or Gould) envisaged in the 1970's.
Dr. Moran:
ReplyDeleteSometimes the more deeply you investigate something, the more plausible it seems. For instance, see www.scientiapress.com/trbc/trbc.htm. Or an easier one: www.scientiapress.com/findings/mailer.htm. Often it's just a question of persevering until things finally fall into place.
Best wishes.
Ken Dillon
Washington, D.C.