# Scientists and other Scholars who publish work considered "crank" by most peers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 14, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174 "2016-04-14T12:13:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/81 "2016-04-17T07:25:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The first one is added to my Wish list. Thank you! It is very expensive, though. The mainstream one will be far more reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![scoots](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b77776/32.png) [@scoots](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scoots)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/82 "2016-04-17T08:37:59Z")
> [@lynne-42](#): > > I stumbled over a new theory for the purpose of Stonehenge and other monuments in the process of writing a book on indigenous knowledge of animals. Yes, there is a link! Unfortunately, it takes a bit of explaining which is a pain because I can’t do nice groovy sound bites. It sounds interesting - like the kind of thing I would read. Is the idea that the shape of Stonehenge encodes certain information (animal behaviour, astronomy etc) in order to preserve that information for the future? If so, which things are you suggesting it encodes? ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/83 "2016-04-17T08:54:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > BTW I guess there’s no real reason to be coy here–the purported woo I think is plausible is the idea that Jesus was not an actual, historical figure. The fact that that one’s been batted around for about a hundred and sixty years without becoming mainstream is probably going to make your task considerably harder. ---
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/84 "2016-04-17T09:49:31Z")
> [@scoots](#): > > It sounds interesting - like the kind of thing I would read. Is the idea that the shape of Stonehenge encodes certain information (animal behaviour, astronomy etc) in order to preserve that information for the future? > > If so, which things are you suggesting it encodes? I really wish I could explain simply. I apologise for the vagueness. Stonehenge has to be considered in terms of the simple stone circle which it was for 500 years before the big guys (the sarsens) in the middle arrived. The circle is probably simply because knowledge is often stored in a cyclic form in non-literate cultures. Rows and other shapes also work. It is the sequence of stones that is critical, each individual. The theory is all based around the most effective memory method known, usually referred to as the method of loci, or memory palaces. That method is attributed to the ancient Greeks and still used by contemporary memory champions. My research has shown that all non-literate cultures also use this method and it can be shown that it has been used in Australia for far longer than the age of monuments such as Stonehenge. Using physical locations for memory is a result of the human brain structure, as shown by the Nobel Prize (2014) winning medical research. The information I am arguing is stored is all the practical stuff, including a great deal on which survival depends. I acknowledge there is a spiritual domain, but my focus is entirely on the way non-literate elders can memorise an entire field guide to the plants and animals - the Navajo have been shown to have a memorised classification of over 700 insects alone! Then navigation charts and extraordinary methods to cross oceans, deserts, through forests and even on moving, featureless ice. Complex genealogies, laws, trade negotiations, resource management, geology … the list goes on and on. My research question was (academically worded): how the hell do they remember so much stuff? It is all to do with recognising song, dance, story, mythology and music as forms of mnemonic aids. There is a whole body of research on this called ‘primary orality’. I then looked for the physical indicators of the memory methods - landscape, features of performance spaces and handheld devices. There is a universal pattern. I am using some of these devices now and they are incredibly effective. I then found those indicators in the landscape of monuments built by small scale oral cultures in the transition from mobile (not nomadic) hunter gatherers to small settled communities. Once you get individual wealth and a warrior class, my theory tends to break down. It is also when the monuments are abandoned. Increasingly restricted societies are a feature of early settlement as are seen widely in the Americas and Africa. That’s when the sarsens come into play at Stonehenge and the public space is created at Durrington Walls. The resistance for the academic domain was because I could not explain with sufficient support in a paper. It took a book. Plus they were (rightly so) suspicious of someone from way outside the domain making such claims. The academic process does allow for such claims, but not overnight! ---
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/85 "2016-04-17T09:55:27Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > BTW I guess there’s no real reason to be coy here–the purported woo I think is plausible is the idea that Jesus was not an actual, historical figure. I’d be coy in many places, but that is why I like the Straight Dope so much. No need to here. How are you going about your research? At a university? Independent researcher? How are you ‘advocating’? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/86 "2016-04-17T18:20:05Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > The fact that that one’s been batted around for about a hundred and sixty years without becoming mainstream is probably going to make your task considerably harder. But then the story of Jesus has been around for c.2000 years, so it’s actually a pretty recent idea. For some reason, when the Christians were giving them problems, the Romans never thought to claim that there was no such person as Jesus. Likely as they knew there had been. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/87 "2016-04-17T21:13:58Z")
> [@lynne-42](#): > > I’d be coy in many places, but that is why I like the Straight Dope so much. No need to here. How are you going about your research? At a university? Independent researcher? > > How are you ‘advocating’? Oh haha nothing as serious or involved as what you’ve accomplished. 😉 I’m just doing casual internet discussion/debate stuff. I have ideas of writing a pop-level book about maybe, but that’s just a notion in the back of my head. ---
**Author:** ![Ignotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ecc23a/32.png) [@Ignotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignotus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/88 "2016-04-17T21:49:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > For some reason, when the Christians were giving them problems, the Romans never thought to claim that there was no such person as Jesus. Likely as they knew there had been. OT: Would such knowledge, if it existed, really have stopped them from claiming otherwise, had they believed it would serve their purpose? Feeding Christians to the lions was OK, but not touting lies? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/89 "2016-04-17T22:25:18Z")
I suggest a new thread, in GD, would be more appropriate for discussing the topic of Jesus’s historical existence. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/90 "2016-04-17T22:55:31Z")
Gilles-Eric Seralini is still cranking about publications about alleged GMO-related harms, long after his original “groundbreaking” study was widely discredited in the scientific community, retracted by the journal it was published in (and later republished elsewhere, to the accompaniment of further criticism and catcalls). > **[Séralini affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair)** > > The Séralini affair was the controversy surrounding the publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. First published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, the article presented a two-year feeding study in rats, and reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp. Scientists and regulatory agencies subsequently concluded that the study's design was flawed and its... So Seralini would amply qualify on the basis of what his colleagues in related fields overwhelmingly regard as crankery and poorly conducted research, yet he manages to retain some academic standing and continues to get published (albeit largely in low impact/open access journals). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/91 "2016-04-18T15:51:53Z")
> [@lynne-42](#): > > I really wish I could explain simply. I apologise for the vagueness. Stonehenge has to be considered in terms of the simple stone circle which it was for 500 years before the big guys (the sarsens) in the middle arrived. The circle is probably simply because knowledge is often stored in a cyclic form in non-literate cultures. Rows and other shapes also work. It is the sequence of stones that is critical, each individual. Wow, Lynne. I’m ashamed of you for proselytizing your crazy views on the Dope. Why don’t you admit [the truth about Stonehenge](http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/did-satanic-giants-build-stonehenge?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link#sthash.5jxv7hL7.dpuf)? It’s given by a guy with a real doctorate that I’m sure is more admired in his academic circles than yours is. > [@](#): > > Televangelist Jim Bakker invited Dr. Dennis Lindsay on to his program on Wednesday to discuss Lindsay’s latest discovery in the realm of Creation Science: the truth behind Stonehenge. > > Hold on to your hats: Stonehenge, it turns out, was built by giants who were created by Satan. > > Lindsay told Bakker that these giants were tools of the devil, who seeks to destroy Israel because “he’s out to destroy God’s creation and his whole plan of redemption and contaminate the human race.” > > But Satan wants to “have his own seed and make his own family,” Lindsay explained, and so he created a race of giants who would attack Israel. > > “He build his little squatter’s hut up there on the Temple Mount, you know that temple, because he knows what the Bible says about that place,” he said. “I weaved through why and what is the evidence for giant beings on this earth. We all know about Stonehenge, right? That’s just one of hundreds and hundreds of gigantic places around the world that testify that some sort of supernatural power or giants were involved in its construction.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/92 "2016-04-18T17:35:48Z")
[Jacques Benveniste](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste) was promoting homeopathy and was technically published in Nature but with a lot of caveats (much like Targ & Puthoff’s work with Uri Geller some years before). When push came to shove his methods were found severely wanting. He complained about the additional protocols but his reputation was trashed. From the stories of how his lab was run, his credibility ruin was well earned. ETA: [This comic version has part of the tale](http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/06/homeopathy.html) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/93 "2016-04-18T18:20:46Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Wow, Lynne. I’m ashamed of you for proselytizing your crazy views on the Dope. Why don’t you admit [the truth about Stonehenge](http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/did-satanic-giants-build-stonehenge?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link#sthash.5jxv7hL7.dpuf)? It’s given by a guy with a real doctorate that I’m sure is more admired in his academic circles than yours is. Perhaps a liberal sprinkling of smilies might help this post, Lynne is new here, she might now know you’re joshing with her. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/94 "2016-04-18T18:38:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Perhaps a liberal sprinkling of smilies might help this post, Lynne is new here, she might now know you’re joshing with her. 🙂 😕 She has a join date of 2003. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/95 "2016-04-18T19:05:14Z")
You may want to review the responses when very similar questions were asked in 2010 and 2015: > **[Examples of scientists who destroyed earlier reputations later in life](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=582266)** > > Any examples? Im thinking split the atom then decided homeopathy was neat, or UFO’s are real kind of thing, conspiracy theory, etc - or went into another field of research that they knew nothing about and made sweeping statements. I know its... > **[Mad Scientists](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=764878)** > > What are some examples of scientists who did really good work but then at some point went off the rails and spent (wasted) their time doing essentially crackpot work? I’m most interested in cases where it should have been clear to the person that... –Mark ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/96 "2016-04-18T20:19:59Z")
Lionel Milgrom seems to fit the OP’s paradigm. Milgrom was (apparently) a long-time respected researcher/lecturer in chemistry, specializing in porphyrins. He held a faculty position at Imperial College London before getting into homeopathy in a big way (he was convinced that homeopathic treatments helped his partner’s pneumonia, according to Wikipedia). Subsequently Milgrom (to the eye-rolling and/or hilarity of his colleagues) began publishing [incredibly esoteric articles](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/19/your-friday-dose-of-woo-when-a-mad-mathe/) attempting to explain homeopathy on the basis of “quantum field theory” or “quantum entanglement”, interspersed with attacks on skeptics who he termed “new fundamentalists”. His latest paper listed in PubMed is entitled “The vital force “reincarnated”: modeling entelechy as a quantized spinning gyroscopic metaphor for integrated medicine”, emphasizing the difficulty one has in dismissing garbage that is dressed up in such impenetrable verbiage. ---
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/97 "2016-04-18T21:39:33Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Wow, Lynne. I’m ashamed of you for proselytizing your crazy views on the Dope. Why don’t you admit [the truth about Stonehenge](http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/did-satanic-giants-build-stonehenge?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link#sthash.5jxv7hL7.dpuf)? It’s given by a guy with a real doctorate that I’m sure is more admired in his academic circles than yours is. [Hangs head in shame]. I shall withdraw my book immediately. It only went to the printers yesterday, so I should be able to stop it. Oh well, so much for eight years work. P.S. Thank you, **DrDeth** , for worrying that I would take this seriously. Much appreciated. You are right, **Exapno Mapcase** , I’ve been on SD a long time and get it (most of the time). ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/98 "2016-04-18T23:53:12Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Again, you are quoting a newspaper report rather than the opinion of Gould among actual scientists. The article I linked to quoted Ralph Holloway, who said Gould was a charlatan. Here’s a few quotes from Robert Trivers, one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of all time, who appears to agree with Holloway’s assessment: > **[Fraud in the Imputation of Fraud](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-folly-fools/201210/fraud-in-the-imputation-fraud)** > > It is often very hard to draw the line between conscious and unconscious deception—or to define the precise mixture of the two. > [@](#): > > Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen Jay Gould personally thought he was something of an intellectual fraud because he had a talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver, while claiming exactly the opposite. > [@](#): > > As would prove usual, Steve missed the larger interesting science by embracing a self-serving fantasy. > [@](#): > > What is worse—and more shocking—is that Steve’s errors are very extensive and the bias very serious. A careful reanalysis shows that his target is unblemished while his own attack is biased in all the ways Gould attributes to his victim. ---
**Author:** ![Haldurson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/51bf81/32.png) [@Haldurson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haldurson)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/99 "2016-04-19T00:32:02Z")
> [@Busy\_Scissors](#): > > James Lovelock is held in extremely highly regard - on account of his obvious brilliance and achievements as a scientist outside of the ‘system’ - but I’m not sure how seriously his Gaia hypotheses are taken. Suspect they might be referred to as ‘crank theories’ had a less distinguished scientist rolled them out. Part of his problem with his Gaia hypotheses (maybe not the whole problem with it) was that some people saw it has having religious connotations, that the earth is LITERALLY a living organism. But Lovelock probably did go a bit too far in his book, and something that should have been no more than an observation became a ‘theory’. FYI – Lynn Margulis, one of Lovelocks’ main ‘disciples’ visited my school, Caltech, from scripps to be one of 4 professors of an earth history class (it was a multi-disciplinary class taken by both geo and bio majors). The disdain that the geo professors held her in was palpable. I wrote a little 4-part story about an ‘adventure’ our class had many years ago: [The Field Trip: A True Story (Chapter 1) – Graham Z.](https://haldurson.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/the-field-trip-a-true-story-chapter-1/) ---
**Author:** ![Arrendajo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Arrendajo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrendajo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174/100 "2016-04-19T02:57:34Z")
Well, there was [Isaac Newton](https://www.google.com/webhp#q=isaac+newton)and all that alchemy crap. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-and-other-scholars-who-publish-work-considered-crank-by-most-peers/752174.md?page=6)