Vindicated "Crank" Scientists of the Modern Age

That’s a particularly good one. When you look at the scale of the flooding he described, with no theory as to where the water actually came from, it’s not hard to see how he was dismissed.

[QUOTE=Dry Falls, WA]
Ten times the size of Niagara, Dry Falls is thought to be the greatest known waterfall that ever existed. According to the current geological model, catastrophic flooding channeled water at 65 miles per hour through the Upper Grand Coulee and over this 400-foot (120m) rock face at the end of the last ice age. At this time, it is estimated that the flow of the falls was ten times the current flow of all the rivers in the world combined.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree - the line about “Degrees in smoking and hating black people” is hilarious, brilliant, and I am sooo stealing it.

Truer than I’d want to admit in the Twenty-teens.

So, even someone as smart and wise as him couldn’t keep himself from sticking the dick in the crazy?

Barbara McClintock

Discovered the gene switch, and was widely ridiculed or simply not understood.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-discovery-of-gene-switches-in-maize/12909.html

A paradigm-bustingly brilliant scientist is just the kind of crazy to do one’s dick-sticking in.

Barry Marshall himself provides a wildly different account of the medical establishment’s acceptance of his discovery in this interview:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery#.UjCKYNLkvTp

I’m vaguely remembering a woman doing work with corn and the term ‘jumping genes’. Was that term used for a bit before she settled on the idea of gene switches?

Priestly thought Lavoisier was an idiot. I mean really, debunking the seriously successful phlogiston theory? Priestly was the first to isolate what he called “deflogisticated air”. Lavoisier called it “oxygen”, a new element. Oddly, Priestly generally gets credit for “discovering oxygen”. Well, he did, but he didn’t know what it was that he’d discovered.

Simon Schwendener proposed that lichens were a combination of fungus and algae (or more accurately, photobiont, including “blue-green algae”, which aren’t algae). He was short on evidence, though. Beatrix Potter (of bunny rabbit book fame) found more evidence, but of course, as a mere woman, couldn’t possibly present to the Royal Society, or be given much credibility.

Wegener had good evidence of “continental drift” but didn’t have a good explanation for the cause. Later evidence (mid-ocean ridges, magnetic correlations in the geology surrounding them, island arcs like Hawaiian Islands, etc.) corroborated, but it wasn’t until they discovered that the entire core of the earth is molten (heated by nuclear reaction, which was unknown in Wegener’s time) that there was a better explanation. Much of what we now consider good evidence wouldn’t have been understood as good evidence at the time. For example, they didn’t know that magnetic poles had reversed many times.

The statements reported in that interview are at odds with the facts.

*"For Marshall and Warren’s proposal to gain scientific and clinical momentum, several requirements had to be met: others had to confirm both the bacteriologic and clinical findings; stronger evidence than mere “bystander” status for an etiologic (causative) role of the bacteria in PUD had to be offered and replicated; diagnostic methods less cumbersome and expensive than endoscopy, biopsy, and culture—the methods used by Warren and Marshall—had to be developed; and antibacterial treatment had to be shown to be more useful—i.e., as safe as but more effective than—standard treatments. The last requirement was not trivial, as I will discuss. All these steps would take time.

One might expect that if scientific medicine had dogmatically rejected Warren and Marshall’s hypothesis, there would be scant references to their reports for the several years after the initial publications. The opposite is the case: the biomedical world was abuzz with Campylobacter pylori from the start, as is demonstrated in the figure. It shows the number of papers listed on PubMed, the online database of the National Library of Medicine, as a function of the calendar year throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. The rate of increase after 1983 is nearly exponential. Anyone who doubts the infatuation that medicine had with C. pylori at the time can surf to PubMed and, using the same search criteria that I used to generate the data for the figure, peruse thousands of abstracts.

Within a couple of years of the original report, numerous groups searched for, and most found, the same organism. Bacteriologists were giddy over the discovery of a new species. By 1987—virtually overnight, on the timescale of medical science—reports from all over the world, including Africa, the Soviet Union, China, Peru, and elsewhere, had confirmed the finding of this bacterium in association with gastritis and, to a lesser extent, ulcers. Simpler and less invasive diagnostic methods were devised (Graham et al. 1987; Evans et al. 1989). The possibility of pyloric campylobacter being the cause of gastritis or ulcers was exciting and vigorously discussed, even as it was acknowledged by all, including Marshall and Warren, to require more evidence. Here is a typical opinion, in this instance from the Netherlands: “There is an explosion of interest in the role of Campylobacter pylori as a cause of active chronic gastritis. . . . To what extent this intriguing microorganism is causally related to peptic ulcer disease remains to be elucidated, but all the evidence which is available so far supports a pathogenetically important role” (Tytgat and Rauws 1987).

The New England Journal of Medicine, the most widely read medical journal in the world, offered this editorial: “Further unfolding of the details [of the possible etiologic role of C. pylori in peptic ulcer disease] will be enhanced by the development of an animal model, by epidemiologic studies, and by identification of the source and the virulence properties of specific serotypes of C. pylori. The prospects are exciting, intriguing, and promising” (Hornick 1987)."*

So, far from ridiculing and ignoring Marshall’s work, the medical/scientific community rapidly entered into the investigations needed to confirm his hypothesis, develop better diagnostic methods and validate treatment.

It should also be noted that the demonstration of H. pylori’s role in causing gastric ulcers did not harm gastroenterologists’ income (despite the Marshall interview suggesting that these docs pooh-poohed him for financial reasons). Endoscopy has boomed both for upper and lower G.I. problems, and while other diagnostic tests are widely used for H. pylori, I still get many gastric biopsies obtained in part for confirmation of H. pylori infection.

I just heard an interview with Jane Goodall who said she had to couch her early observations in very careful language, because her theory that chimpanzees had emotions or distinct personalities was rejected by most anthropologists/ethologists at the time. Now it is generally accepted to be true, but then she had to supply the evidence without appearing to make the claim.

One thing that seems to be “obvious” (though maybe it’s not true to the extent I think it is) is that “science” today is much more organized and institutional and the lone “mad scientist” conjuring stuff up in his lab is becoming less and less of a thing as time goes on.

Two possible reasons:

  1. In the old days, there was a lot to discover using common, ordinary substances and equipment that the average person could acquire. Now, the cutting edge in many fields requires expensive equipment that your average person can’t afford, so scientists have to affiliate with a university or other research organization in order to get funding and access to tools, and getting affiliated requires a certain “standard” that your average wannabe backyard researcher doesn’t meet, e.g. PhD, good references, lots of published research, etc.

  2. Science has just become very institutionalized and “real” ™ scientists don’t pay attention to people claiming discoveries in their backyard. “He claims he found a new type of mollusk? He doesn’t even have a PhD or a research appointment? He’s just some 9-5 blue collar worker! I have better things to do than read his paper!”

Loving this thread. Thank you.

Of course, they weren’t. They led to Russell’s paradox: Russell's paradox - Wikipedia. Which is not to take away from Cantor’s real achievements. Before him, anything involving actual infinity was verboten. Now we are entirely comfortable with it. Let me note that Hilbert himself came in for considerable criticism when he proved that something existed without giving a way of constructing it. This has led to various kinds of “intuitionistic” or “constructive” mathematics. But few mathematicians subscribe to any of these.

I think Wegener had more going for him than the shape of the continents. There were also geologic and botanic resemblances across the ocean divide, which were pretty convincing. But his ideas were rejected for the reason that he had no idea of the mechanism. But let me point out that even Darwin had no idea of the mechanism of inheritance. But he was aware that his proposal of blended inheritance could not really explain evolution by natural selection. Gregor Mendel showed that inheritance wasn’t blended, but still had no idea of the mechanism.

In regards to the second one, it varies by field. Comet discoveries are made by amateurs. New mushrooms species sometimes too.

As for the first point, not only does it take a lot of money and space and support to build or acquire the equipment to do research in some cases, but you need advanced training to even understand what the question should be and how to ask it. Working on cold fusion in your basement isn’t impossible, but it’s unlikely to work if you are hobbyist.

Everything robert_columbia said is absolutely true. As a result, today’s quacks tend to be credentialed scientists making discoveries outside their field. Pruisner was a veterinarian making molecular microbiology claims. Similarly, Marshall was a microbiologist making gastroenterology claims.

Oh? :dubious:

Who exactly came up with this theory, and what is the evidence for it?

I’d think the mere force of gravity compressing the dense material in the core would be more than sufficient to keep it molten, but then I admit I’m no expert on the subject.

Wegener made some very well thought out claims for continental drift, before that, all we had was the theoretical existence of ancient “land bridges” to explain similarity of animals in remote areas. He deserves plenty of credit.

The wiki article on the Geothermal Gradient provides some jumping off points for this. Radioactive decay is just one component though.

It isn’t so far out for a microbiologist to observe a bacterium in a setting where disease is occurring and postulate a connection between it and disease etiology.*

Where actual cranks run rampant is promoting ideas much more remote from their areas of training and expertise - neurosurgeons touting creationism over evolution, Nobel prize winners arguing racist ideology and bizarre theories about autism, the parade of iconoclasts arguing against manmade climate change etc. Linus Pauling’s obsession with vitamin C is just one example.

*although just observing the presence of a microorganism and concluding it must be causing disease has led a lot of people astray.