Yeah, consensus science never fails.
The shy, 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it.
…
“I was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying,” he recalled. “I never took it personally. I knew I was right and they were wrong.”
Full story here at Yahoo News.
Congratulations for winning the Nobel Prize, and for having the courage and stamina to stick it out Dr. Shechtman. I hope you will be an inspiration to many others to not let the intimidation of closed minded peers wear you down. Science self-corrects, sometimes taking years to do so and we are witnessing the self correction of climate science consensus slowly take place before our own eyes.
Thanks to Mary Friederichs who submitted the story via our web interface.
======================
UPDATE: R. Gates provides this video in comments:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
jorgekafkazar says:
October 5, 2011 at 2:30 pm
We need another prize for such cases, the Vavilov Prize.
_________________________________________________________________
Agreed.
At least Dr. Shechtman was not murdered.
Max Hugoson says:
October 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“John Marshall – NP 2005, Medicine – Heliobactor Pylori. Cause of stomach ulcers. Also considered a “radical”.”
________________________________________________________
He was the first person I thought of too. At least we still have some true scientists around among all the errrr, I can not think of a polite phrase….
According to Fox News Linus Pailing mocked him as a “quasi scientist” and that quasicrystals were impossible. Science had settled the matter don’t you know.
Challenging the conventional wisdom is most often, the best way to challenge the conventional wisdom. The other option could be to shoot the conventional wisdom in the face, but that’s not getting you anywhere.
I was fortunate to hear a lecture he gave several years ago. Very inspirational and a fascinating person. Here’s a nice Youtube video on his findings:
The best is the story about Linus Pauling. Max Planck’s witticism that “science advances one funeral at a time” is wonderfully demonstrated. The great men of science are truly dangerous.
Shechtman, who also teaches at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, said he never wavered even in the face of stiff criticism from double Nobel winner Linus Pauling, who never accepted Shechtman’s findings.
“He would stand on those platforms and declare, ‘Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense. There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.'” Shechtman said. “He really was a great scientist, but he was wrong. It’s not the first time he was wrong.”
I heard a great comment by a lunar scientist friend of mine yesterday after saying that he had looked at over two years of radar data from the Moon.
There are things that we know are true about the Moon that are absolutely wrong.
He was one of the early supporters of lots of water on the Moon as well and took years of abuse for it. He has only been vindicated for that in the last couple of years.
Alfred Wegener was opposed by a “consensus of scientists” for his theory of continental drift.
Celia Payne-Gaposchkin was opposed by a “consensus of scientists” for proposing that our sun was made up primarily of hydrogen, not iron.
There are many other examples.
Tim
Yes, yes, sometimes people are right even though everyone thought they were wrong. But just because everyone thinks you’re wrong, it doesn’t mean you’re right. The vast majority of the time, when everyone thinks you’re wrong, it’s because you’re wrong.
REPLY: Well if traffic and public opinion polls on AGW are any indication Stevo, the majority thinks you are your buds at SkS are wrong, and it is now becoming the “vast majority of the time” So when is SkS going to respond to my offer, or is John Cook and Dana1981 simply going to cover their ears and go lalalalalalalal! so they can keep insulting people by calling them deniers? – Anthony
A surprisingly thoughtful commentary on consensus in Nature of all places. Even more surprising, it’s not paywalled.
(Let’s be careful how we embrace this, lest the editor have to resign.)
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478007a.html
Mocked, insulted, ridiculed… You sure this guy isn’t a skeptical climate scientist?
I want an anti-prize bestowed on those who act hostile to individuals such as this in this manner.
I say if you managed to win a nobel prize in a science for discovering something new, those who ostracized you should be stripped of any scientific awards they’ve received.
This closed-minded behavior has to be discouraged somehow.
@vboring says:
October 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“Funnily enough, climate scientists still see themselves as the anti-establishment hero working to save a disbelieving society.
I’m pretty sure this is how they justify bending the rules.”
You’ve nailed it! They see themselves as Schechtmen. They don’t see themselves as the close-minded consensus, though that clearly is what they are.
I had posted this earlier: (A Prophet without honour?)
“This year’s Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to an Israeli scientist who “fought a fierce battle against established science” .. the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced Wednesday.”
“fought a fierce battle against established science” .. hmmm… seems to be a not uncommon thing in science.
Like established science said stress causes ulcers and not bacteria.
Turned out that ulcers cause stress and not the other way round and that ulcers were caused by something entirely different – the h pylori bacteria.
Sound similar to the anthropogenic CO2 story?
“(Let’s be careful how we embrace this, lest the editor have to resign.)”
The author still implies the IPCC’s main selling point is correct though.
Tom Jones says:
October 5, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“He [Pauling] would stand on those platforms and declare, ‘Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense. There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.’” Shechtman said. “He [Pauling] really was a great scientist, but he [Pauling} was wrong. It’s not the first time he [Pauling} was wrong.”
…like his [Pauling’s] entire new age belief in vitamin C and its so-called incredible powers…
Excuse me while I take my ginko-bilbao, fish oil, condroitin, echinachea, wheat grass, fruit juice, asa, cocktail… 😉
Maryf says:
October 5, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Anthony–I’m proud to have sent this story to your website. Dr. Shechtman is a true scientist and I’m happy he has been vindicated. You and your readers/commenters have educated me for more than 2 years –thank you all
Mary, thank you for bringing this story to WUWT. I found it fascinating and at the same time inspiring that someone could stick to what they believe in, despite criticism from their peers.
I wish the same could be said for the advocates of AGW, who should also be educated by WUWT.
Unfortunately education rarely affects bigotry.
The names of the people who gave Dr. Shechtman a hard time and ridiculed him, should be published as a lesson for others who are wrong.
Yes, this happened to my wife and I took her Pop to a Gastro-enterologist , Who called the
Heilobactor idea “Hokum” he got insulted when we wanted a referral to a Doctor who thought
Marshall was on the right track. We actually were banned from the clinic Dr. Klown was in…
All because my wife said “I have read about…”
Gail Combs says:
October 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Max Hugoson says:
October 5, 2011 at 2:55 p
“John Marshall – NP 2005, Medicine – Heliobactor Pylori. Cause of stomach ulcers. Also considered a “radical”.”
Good interview with Shechtman on NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/05/141087726/nobel-winning-chemist-fought-hard-for-acceptance
The Pauling connection is especially important. Nasty old Pauling also blocked the biochemistry research of Art Robinson, who had to take his work on aging and metabolism “private”. Robinson later became one of the pioneers on the factual side of climate research.
The lesson from this is that neither “Everyone thinks you’re wrong, so you’re wrong.” nor “Everyone thinks your right, so you’re right.” are logical arguments.
Same thought, and this is the reason why:
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html
Oh, and give a shout out to Iowa Sate, where he also works.
J. Harland Bretz was another one who suffered from ridicule.It took around 2-4 decades for the main geology field to catch up with him.While he did not explain the source of the waters much.His explanations on the effects of the water actions on the land was very good.
From History Link.org
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=8382
As a graduate of Iowa State University (Mechanical Engineering), I am very proud of Dr. Shechtman and my old alma mater. Well done!