# Why was there hostility to the idea of quasi-crystals in the early 80s? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 6, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803 "2011-10-06T17:17:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/1 "2011-10-06T17:17:16Z")
A scientist won the Nobel in Chemistry for discovering quasi-crystals in the early 80s. I’ve seen several reports that when he first told people about it, his ideas weren’t just questioned or even simply rejected–people ridiculed him for the idea. Linus Pauling called him a “quasi-scientist.” The discoverer was fired from some position or other over it. My question is, what was the reason for the hostility? Skepticism is natural, of course, but this seems like more than that. What was going on? Were careers or reputations at stake or something? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/2 "2011-10-06T17:29:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **Linus Pauling** called him a “quasi-scientist.” The ironing is delicious. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/3 "2011-10-06T19:41:15Z")
A pretty good article explaining it can be found [here](http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/clear-as-crystal-1.353504). My favorite part: > [@](#): > > One day, he relates, his daughter came back from school and told him she had learned about Linus Pauling. “She asked me if this was the same Linus Pauling who was against me; because if so, she said, he must be right.” ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/4 "2011-10-06T20:10:18Z")
Shechtman has joined a distinquished list of scientists who were scoffed at. Pauling was already another, longer list. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/5 "2011-10-06T20:22:26Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The ironing is delicious. Only if you use one to heat and flatten your food at the same time. Flat iron steak, anyone? ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/6 "2011-10-06T20:29:02Z")
The textbooks said otherwise. People tend to cling to the conceptual structures that they learned from their undergraduate textbooks. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/7 "2011-10-06T20:44:30Z")
Clarke’s first law: _When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong._ It seems that most of the hostility can ultimately be traced back to Pauling and reverence to him. But Pauling was still a human who made mistakes; among them his views on quasicrystals and vitamin C. ---
**Author:** ![JWT\_Kottekoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@JWT\_Kottekoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JWT_Kottekoe)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/8 "2011-10-07T01:47:35Z")
It was hard to accept because all crytallographers know that there is no way to create a crystal (in the classic sense) with the symmetry that Shechtman saw. This was rigorously proven mathematically and the allowed symmetrys are drilled into the heads of any student of crystallography, solid-state physics, Xray diffraction, or materials science. Everyone knew it was impossible and they were absolutely right. What they were missing was the strange notion that a material could have no long range order, but have short range order that exhibited a classically forbidden symmetry and gave discrete Xray spectra, just like a classic crystal. This is what Shechtman discovered empirically and, unless you did all the experiments yourself or had a convincing theory for how it was possible, it was really difficult to believe in. Ultimately, that theory emerged, and was seen to be the same idea behing Penrose tiles. Once that was available, it was very easy to believe in. The controversy died out for most people (at least among physicists) long before Pauling died. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/9 "2011-10-07T02:31:36Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > The textbooks said otherwise. People tend to cling to the conceptual structures that they learned from their undergraduate textbooks. Given the way that science has proceded from revolution to revolution in the last couple of centuries, I’d think scientists react with _caution_ but not _hostility_ towards anomolous claims. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/10 "2011-10-07T02:34:46Z")
> [@JWT\_Kottekoe](#): > > It was hard to accept because all crytallographers know that there is no way to create a crystal (in the classic sense) with the symmetry that Shechtman saw. This was rigorously proven mathematically and the allowed symmetrys are drilled into the heads of any student of crystallography, solid-state physics, Xray diffraction, or materials science. Everyone knew it was impossible and they were absolutely right. > > What they were missing was the strange notion that a material could have no long range order, but have short range order that exhibited a classically forbidden symmetry and gave discrete Xray spectra, just like a classic crystal. > > This is what Shechtman discovered empirically and, unless you did all the experiments yourself or had a convincing theory for how it was possible, it was really difficult to believe in. Ultimately, that theory emerged, and was seen to be the same idea behing Penrose tiles. Once that was available, it was very easy to believe in. The controversy died out for most people (at least among physicists) long before Pauling died. This explains the skepticism, which I don’t find at all inexplicable. It doesn’t explain the _hostility_. What other examples of hostility towards empirical claims can we find in the 20th century? Where one person says “I see something very strange here in my science device” and most of the rest of the community, without looking for themselves, says “Shut up, you’re being an ass!” and does things like kick him off of research teams etc. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/11 "2011-10-07T03:13:29Z")
As a huge Linus Pauling fan, I am very disappointed to hear that he would refer to another scientist as a “quasi-scientist.” This makes me really think a lot less of him. I was actually thinking about naming my son Linus… now, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/12 "2011-10-07T03:25:58Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This explains the skepticism, which I don’t find at all inexplicable. It doesn’t explain the _hostility_. What other examples of hostility towards empirical claims can we find in the 20th century? I take it you have not seen what climate change deniers are doing to climate researchers these days. The denial is so extreme in some groups that even Republican scientists are not making many friends in those groups by pointing out at the empirical evidence. [http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/03/penn-state-geologist-richard-alley-hosts-pbs-series/](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/03/penn-state-geologist-richard-alley-hosts-pbs-series/) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/13 "2011-10-07T04:00:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I take it you have not seen what climate change deniers are doing to climate researchers these days. > > The denial is so extreme in some groups that even Republican scientists are not making many friends in those groups by pointing out at the empirical evidence. > > [Yep! Flora's Media and Forum - Nature Blog](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/03/penn-state-geologist-richard-alley-hosts-pbs-series/) Now that the Nobel has brought attention to the rather esoteric subject, how long before it loudly seeps into the “see, scientists have been wrong before!” non-argument? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/14 "2011-10-07T04:47:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Where one person says “I see something very strange here in my science device” and most of the rest of the community, without looking for themselves, says “Shut up, you’re being an ass!” and does things like kick him off of research teams etc. For a current counter-example, look at the CERN neutrino results. Plenty of people are saying it must be some sort of unaccounted-for experimental error, but nobody’s saying that the CERN folks are idiots for making that error (whatever it is) or for not accounting for it. And this for a result which, if true, would violate the most thoroughly tested theory in all of science. And **GIGObuster** , I think **Frylock** was looking for examples of _scientists_ being hostile this way. The vast majority of climate change deniers aren’t scientists. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/15 "2011-10-07T04:53:12Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > As a huge Linus Pauling fan, I am very disappointed to hear that he would refer to another scientist as a “quasi-scientist.” This makes me really think a lot less of him. I was actually thinking about naming my son Linus… now, not so much. At some point in his life Linus Pauling fell into league with so many other scientists who believed their opinions could somehow outweigh inconvenient facts, and punctuated their opionions with ad hominems. Pure hubris, and humanity. Even though a lifetime of scientfic reseach would tend to make someone dismissive of anything resembling a crackpot idea, the history of science is graduated by the occasional cracks in pots that are the result of a breakthrough. It doesn’t seem that diificult to keep that history in mind. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/16 "2011-10-07T05:06:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For a current counter-example, look at the CERN neutrino results. Plenty of people are saying it must be some sort of unaccounted-for experimental error, but nobody’s saying that the CERN folks are idiots for making that error (whatever it is) or for not accounting for it. And this for a result which, if true, would violate the most thoroughly tested theory in all of science. > > And **GIGObuster** , I think **Frylock** was looking for examples of _scientists_ being hostile this way. The vast majority of climate change deniers aren’t scientists. Even there one has to remember that there are a few scientists that are still skeptics and mentioned by deniers as examples to say that there is a huge controversy. I do agree that there is not much hostility among scientists, but one can “feel the love” from the recent skeptical scientists that resigned from the APS because they decided to reach for politics instead of showing why the vast majority of scientists are wrong. > **[Nobel Prize Winner, Ivar Giaever, Resigns from the American Physical Society...](https://www.desmog.com/2011/09/16/nobel-prize-winner-ivar-giaever-resigns-american-physical-society-over-global-warming-stance/)** > > On September 14, renowned Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever announced his resignation as a Fellow at the American Physical Society (APS). The reason? His grievance over their stance on global warming, which they believe, rightfully so,... It is unfortunate, but even though scientists like Giaever are not experts on the field, their say so’s are grabbed by the denier press to incite politicians and other not so peaceful persons to keep up the hostilities being launched to the climate scientists nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![JWT\_Kottekoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@JWT\_Kottekoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JWT_Kottekoe)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/17 "2011-10-07T05:22:44Z")
I don’t know the full story about Ivar Giaver’s resignation from the APS, but I agree with his beef about the use of the word “incontrovertible” in the APS statement. Nothing is incontrovertible in science. There was a big controversy within the APS about this, among people most of whom, I think, have no issue with the rest of the statement. ---
**Author:** ![JWT\_Kottekoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@JWT\_Kottekoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JWT_Kottekoe)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/18 "2011-10-07T05:33:58Z")
To return to the OP’s question, I am not aware that there was much hostility to Shechtman. Yes, there was some. Scientists are human, after all. Certainly the guy who kicked him out of the group for fear of disgrace was being hostile. Generally scientists love to argue with each other, but they can usually stay friends. They may even publicly call each other names, like “quasi-scientist” and still remain friends, but I am sure it was tough for a guy early in his career being publicly criticized by such an icon as Pauling. A quote from Shechtman in the link that Lance Turbo provided is worth reading: “People harbor beliefs. That’s what happens when people believe something religiously. The argument with Linus Pauling was almost theological.” Still, their disagreements never deteriorated to the personal level. “At conferences people would wait for fights to break out between us over dinner. But Pauling was always cordial. He was a New Yorker with southern manners. We would sit and talk for hours about things we agreed on. For example, he was a big advocate of vitamin C, and so am I. We agreed about everything, but not about quasicrystals.” ---
**Author:** ![wbeaty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/439d5e/32.png) [@wbeaty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wbeaty)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/19 "2011-10-07T07:40:10Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > What other examples of hostility towards empirical claims can we find in the 20th century? That’s the problem right there. Nobody should have to ask such a question. We should already have numerous examples in mind, and a bit of research would turn up far more. But the examples are an embarrassment, and they directly conflict with the idea that Science is some sort of infallible Bold Striding Forward. We don’t encounter them in the classroom, nor in pop articles or books. Here’s one excellent book on the topic: “Hidden Histories of Science.” It even has an Oliver Sacks essay. And the title says it all: this material has gotten itself ‘disappeared.’ Nobody likes to confront their mistakes, so we clean things up and sweep them under the carpet …only in science, isn’t forcibly confronting errors our main goal? There should be many such books, but I’ve found only a couple. Another chemical breakthrough: the BZ oscillator. It’s discoverer Belousov ended his career over it. The Scanning Tunneling Microscope? Ridiculed. Black holes? Crushed by scorn for 30 years, and S. Chandrasekhar had to bail from Cambridge. He got the Nobel in the end, but what if things turned out differently? You’d think such major events would be common knowledge, but instead… …guess what …they’re ridiculed. Disbelieved. Shunted aside, where they’re common knowledge only in the bigfoot/aliens/conspiracy realm. I think the most serious problem of all is this one: _“Many discoveries must have been stillborn or smothered at birth. We know only those which survived.”_ - WIB Beveridge, “The Art of Scientific Investigation.” If you encounter lots of near misses, lots of almost-lost discoveries, that’s the tail end of a stats curve which suggests the presence of serious calamities. But in this case any “disappeared” major discoveries are invisible, by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803/20 "2011-10-07T12:38:59Z")
Apparently Pauling mounted a campaign against him. By that time, with the vitamin C, Pauling had morphed into a pseudo-scientist. I mean, if you think someone is wrong, by all means say so. But denounce him, get him fired? That’s beyond the pale. Even the cold-fusion people didn’t get that kind of treatment. I wonder whether being scooped on the structure of DNA (he put the bases on the outside of the helix, which would have left the pairing and all that follows inexplicable) somehow unhinged him. I also wonder whether he was just an old-school antisemite. It is hard to appreciate these days how pervasive that was to people growing up in the early half of the century. I was strongly advised not to major in chemistry. Fortunately. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-there-hostility-to-the-idea-of-quasi-crystals-in-the-early-80s/598803.md?page=2)