Guest post by Steven Goddard
There is no question that some of the greatest minds have been scientists. Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Edison, Einstein, Fermi, Feynman are a few names that come to mind.
But how about the consensus? One of the most famous cases of consensus science gone ridiculous involved the theory of Continental Drift. In 1912, a German scientist named Alfred Wegener introduced the theory that the continents were not stationary, but rather moved.
Any child can see that the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, yet the scientific community took over 50 years to stop ridiculing Wegener and accept his theory.
“Utter, damned rot!” said the president of the prestigious American Philosophical Society.
“If we are to believe in Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again.” Geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain
“further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students.” Geologist Barry Willis
Sound familiar?
http://travel.state.gov/images/maps/brazil.gif
http://www.globalkids.info/v3/content/africa.jpg
Several earlier scientists had also observed the obvious – from Wikipedia :
Abraham Ortelius (1597), Francis Bacon (1625), Benjamin Franklin, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. W. J. Kious described Ortelius’ thoughts in this way:[1]
Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus … suggested that the Americas were “torn away from Europe and Africa … by earthquakes and floods” and went on to say: “The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents].
Not only do the continents fit together, but Wegener observed that their geology matched.
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-DuToit.jpeg
And the fossils match.
. 
http://www.scientus.org/Pellegrini-Wegener-1.gif
We see a parallel to global warming. The earth is not warming out of control. Sea level is not rising out of control. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are not collapsing. The IPCC documents have been shown to be littered with junk science and fraud. The hockey team has been shown to be misusing their positions. Yet the consensus hangs on to the ridiculous, for the same reasons they did from 1912 to 1960. No one wants to “forget what they learned and start over again.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
– Michael Crichton
Can’t prove a scientific theory right, can only come up with a counter example (in some cases the counter example blows the theory entirely or forces modifications) or continue to not disprove it up to the present by making predictions with the theory then confirming that the predictions are correct (usually by measuring something) within some uncertainty bounds.
No, of course scientists are not always smart. Scientists are human (except of course for Commander Data) and therefore subject to the same set of temptations and errors as other humans. I have heard a rumor that some scientists may additionally suffer from inflated ego, but of course that may be a lie.
Thirty excellent examples of smart people, including some scientists, being wrong can be found at http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/top-30-failed-technology-predictions/
One of my favorites is No. 8, the well known Lord Kelvin remark that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
I disagree with the article.
If you want to have a scientific process that maintains high quality standards
than you have to accept that there is a high barrier, until the scientific community accepts a new theory.
I do think every scientist accepts that. That is why we have to defend our Ph.D. thesis with scientific experiments, data and arguments and why we call it “defend”, because we know this barrier is there for very good reasons. If we sit in the “defense meeting” on the other site, we happily help to build up this barrier with scientific experiments, data and arguments . We do everything that the candidate who overcomes this barrier with scientific experiments, data and arguments can be proud that he met the high quality scientific standards.
There is no shortcut.
Re: Mooloo (Feb 12 20:21),
If you want to prove AGW is wrong, then you need to prove AGW is wrong. Nothing else will do. Going off on a tangent about how other scientists were wrong in the past is totally and utterly irrelevant.
I respectfully disagree. AGW isn’t just about the science. Large proportion of the population is involved in this debate. many are saying “200 scientists can’t all be wrong” etc
This example shows/reminds people that a concensus of respectable, established scientists can indeed be wrong.
It is a great shame that Wegener never lived to see his work accepted, unfortunetly in science things dont progress until the current gate keepers die. And yes, AGW appears to be the same!
Funilly enough, in Al Gores movie he uses the analogy of how a child hood friend noticed the continents fitted together but was told he was wrong by the teacher! To me this is an example of how a touch of common sense is far more useful than an army of scientists!
I work with scientists and have at times helped out with papers (normally review) and reviewed other outputs and I am often amazed at how they miss the elephant in the room (not all of them of course). I recall one scientist who called me to help him with a paper, he was developing a set of equations to estimae the attenuation of flow through a basin once full and wanted me to review what he had done against established hydraulic modelling packages and real data I held. Within 5 minutes I had found an error in his maths which was obvious to me, but worse than that, I had to explain to him the whole concept was flawed as a basin once full has no attenuation effect, flow in displaces water resulting in the same outflow – the effect of the time between and the storage available were irrelenvant! This was basic hydraulics and yet a professor is hydraulics at a highly respected university had missed it completely. At least he thanked me for me time and for helping him out!
Steven Goddard wrote:
”” There is no question that some of the greatest minds have been scientists. Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Edison, Einstein, Fermi, Feynman are a few names that come to mind.””
Steven,
I offer what I consider a very frightening possibility. What if those you listed are actually normal human minds. What if our culture & educational methods were not effective on them, so they are therefore natural capacity normal humans. Perhaps most of us & those around us everyday are not normal.
John
The average IQ of graduate students when I was in school was 115. That’s abysmally low, but probably includes all fields.
Smart is as smart does. A Mensa member was deep fat frying food for a picnic and got a spur-of-the-moment bright idea to hard boil an egg by dropping it into the hot oil. The egg, of course, blew up like a little grenade, drenching everything in hot oil: stove, walls ceiling, floor. Through some odd geometric juxtaposition, she was untouched and much wiser than before. “Experience is something you get five minutes after you need it.” –Stephen Wright.
Very nice set of statements on what complexity does to and for science at
http://wenovski.ning.com/profiles/blogs/so-what-changes-in-a-complex
(Extracts from The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability (Complexity in Ecological Systems) http://is.gd/8hWaC at Amazon)
A revered professor once told our class “A PhD does not mean someone is smart. It means they worked hard.”
And if you’re smart it’s easier to defend your refusal to “get it.” Edward de Bono called the facility smart people have for justifying their arrogant snap judgments “the intelligence trap.”
No because the expanding earth theory conflicts with known and demonstrable scientific results and makes predictions which fail every experiment.
I had a good look at the “Expanding Earth” hypothesis and while the video is superficially interesting, the claims fail key experimental tests.
That’s the standard, not who believes in it.
Face it, everyone has a favourite hypothesis which is extremely unlikely to be true, scientists included. A physicist professor friend remarked to me that 90% of what she has hypothesized turns out to be false. With grad students its 98%, the rest even higher.
It’s not that scientists are infallible on every topic, its that every topic must be tested by experiment.
The problem is not the science. The problem is the politics. If we can get the politics out of the science, the science will look after itself.
I worked out continental drift at 5 years old without being told about it just by looking at a map. Logic fails many adults.
When I was a little kid in the 1950’s I could see that South America and Africa fit together, sort of, but it wasn’t until they came up with topo charts of the Mid Atlantic Ridge that we had any real reason to believe they were once unified. The geology similarities could easily have been coincidence.
They didn’t start mapping the ocean bottom until the mid 50’s, so continental drift was an interesting theory maybe a little better than the barycentric theory that keeps cropping up here. There are lots of off-the-wall theories around, always have been. Some of them prove out, some don’t, but displaying 20-20 hindsight invites Muphrey’s Law.
@John Whitman
“…..
4th – Lights Out (Dark Ages) – scientists? zippo outside of religious dogma yes men
…”
Roger Bacon…
For what it’s worth, probably nothing, I think it’s o.k. that someone with a bee in their bonnet , a wayout hypothesis, goes for it and perseveres regardless of criticism. We know, as Popper said, we’re all theory ridden. That’s what probaly triggers our exploration in the first place. HOWEVER, (post second glass of wine,) however, the scientific method, requiring open critical review of a falsifiable hypothesis, its data, methodology,replication, brings ‘us or the other guy’, back to the field. (Racing terminology,.My father pioneered photo finish technology.)When that goes wrong, i.e. stringent criticism of the evidence, real data is replaced by postmodern science, then ends justify the means. The critical process must be upheld. Guess you’d call this a rant…
Just to add to the chorus of responses to Mooloo’s silly statement: Mooloo, you stated in so many words that the matter of scientists being wrong in the past is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Man, when you miss the point, you really miss it! The article is making the point that *consensus* is meaningless. Decades ago, the ‘consensus’ was that continental drift was impossible.
Did you see that quote by Geologist Barry Willis? “Further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students.” Or, in shorthand: “The time for talking is over. The science is settled.”
Here’s another glaring one:
“If we are to believe in Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again.” (Geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain)
Kind of like this slightly more recent comment:
“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” (Phil Jones)
Do you still think the comparison is “totally and utterly irrelevant,” Mooloo?
Two points.
1, the consensus view used to be humanity couldn’t materially effect the climate – there were people sceptical of that view…
2, Steven Goddard (or anyone here) is free do to the research, present the evidence, and gather the data that refutes accepted science. So far what we’ve from said has just been a load of profit for the final nail industry…
————
Mooloo read this:
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ybuau25
I’m glad Feynman was mentioned. I’m about half way through ‘Classic Feynman’.
If the question was modified to ask “are climate scientists always smart?” then the answer is easy and obvious. No
Its worse that just being dumber than average They are a very select and elitist group that has contrived to protect their priviledged position..by cooking the data eg Mann, and then hiding it from further scrutiny eg Jones..the have engaged in blatant political lobbying,eg Hansen and they have remained silent when there as been clear misuse of the information for financial gain by others eg Gore.etc etc
They have spent upwards of $80bn and all they have to show for it is a highly dubious document called the IPCC thats riddled with stupid errors but on the basis of which we were expected to hand over the keys to the collective Treasuries,bankrupt economies and put thousands out of work and into penury.
They deserve or condemnation.. they are not smart at all… they have to be the most stupidest people imagineable
…and to top it all off.. their silly hypothesis is readily falsifiable
Being smart haScientists are almost universally stupid
Here are some funny historical examples of observations and conclusions being drawn, particularly when Warmists conclude it must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/SCI_meth.htm
Correction:
“…this is particularly relevant to Warmists who conclude that the recent warming must be down to manmade CO2 because we can’t think of anything else.”