Hello,
I am looking for a quick example of a famous scientist who had one or more outlandish theories.
I have a friend who is trying to call some research into disrepute not by criticizing the specific research but instead by criticizing some of the researchers’ more outlandish theories.
I know that famous, legitimate scientists also had some strange theories–I just can’t think of a good example.
Thanks!
Let me get this straight, your friend has no interest in attacking the argument but would rather attack the presenter? The fancy name would be Ad Hominem and it’s normally considered a logical fallacy.
Sir Fred Hoyle’s idea of viruses falling from space might be a weird enough idea that hasn’t been born out.
Sigmund Freud was certainly a seminal figure in the development of psychology as a science, but many of his theories are considered “outlandish” today. Carl Jung, even more so. (Nowadays, shrinks seem to prefer pills to “talk therapy.”) Or were you limiting this to the natural sciences?
I think there’s just enough of a possibility gap - with the suggestions Hoyle has made about particle size in interstellar space (a great deal the size of bacteria) - for it to deserve some credence. If you think about the scale of the arena on Earth for molecular “trials” to produce inheriting self-assembly there doesn’t seem to be nearly enough opportunity for that to be anything but extremely improbable.
Isaac Newton was a firm believer in alchemy.
What theory could possibly be more outlandish than the Copenhage quantum interpretation of Niels Bohr et al. It’s only advantage is that it works.
Linus Pauling had theories about vitamin C which many consider to be outlandish or at least controversial.
William Shockley, the co-inventor of the transistor, had views on race and eugenics that were controversial, to say the least. Shockley:
You might also consider Pierre Teilhard de Chardin:
His work in paleontology was significant enough that you have to consider him a legitimate scientist. He also spent his life attempting to reconcile science with intense religious faith and mysticism, seemingly starting from a basic assumption that such a thing was possible. Look at the critique of “The Phenomenon of Man” by Sir Peter Medawar, basically ripping him a new asshole.
Didn’t Copernicus have some crazy idea about the Earth revolving around the sun?
I mean, hell, the nutjob got excommunicated for that one.
Oh, and you might also consider John Lilly, who started out as a conventional scientist:
William Herschel, who discovered Uranus in 1781, believed the Sun was cold and simply had a glowing upper atmosphere.
Newton also spent a huge portion of his later years looking for ciphers in the Bible.
As did Timothy Leary.
What about Thomas Edison and his wonky theories about the after-life/the spirit world? That has to count.
Anyone stupid enough to be fooled by this isn’t smart enough to argue with.
Aristotle thought that the purpose of the brain was to cool down the blood.
Two come to mind:
Wilhelm Reich: was originally a respected psychologist. totally went bonkers later. Hos “orgone” theory is one of the amusing episodes of crackpot “science”.
-L. Ron Hubbard: Scientist, naval officer, and researcher. His theory of “scientology” is a real hoot-postulates that human souls/thetans have existed for 100’s of billions of years.
So the surface of the sun is either the same temperature or colder than its interior…