We all want to believe that science is about pushing the boundaries of knowledge,
breaking the status quo and persuading curious ideas, even if the majority of people find them unbelievable. But is it so?
breaking the status quo and persuading curious ideas, even if the majority of people find them unbelievable. But is it so?
There are many cases of scientists who were disgraced and persecuted by the scientific
community simply because their findings challenged the already existing beliefs.
community simply because their findings challenged the already existing beliefs.
Humberto Maturana and Lynn Margulis
Humberto Maturana is a prominent biologist who studied the examples of symbiosis
between organisms: fungi that control the ants (there are farming ants that grow fungi
for food) or the parasites that hijack the brains of snails.
between organisms: fungi that control the ants (there are farming ants that grow fungi
for food) or the parasites that hijack the brains of snails.
https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/image/0005/24791/leucochloridium-paradoxum.jpg
Maturana wondered how is it possible that a symbiosis so complex as the one between
a worm and a snail could ever take place? It occurred it is actually a more general
argument about the evolution. What comes first: the design or the application?
a worm and a snail could ever take place? It occurred it is actually a more general
argument about the evolution. What comes first: the design or the application?
Maturana clearly refused the answers that are typically given: it takes a long time.
He asked instead what kind of a process is required to create such symbiosis and
his answer was: co-evolution. These two species couldn't have developed
independently and then discover that one can become a parasite on the other.
The chances for such coincidence are infinitesimal. As this happens over and over
again everywhere, all through the fossil history, it cannot be a chance. He concluded
that nature develops as a system. This is what he means by co-evolution, but this
also implies that our entire view of biology is wrong, because we view it as a collection
of independent species, which we can't do if we wish to explain these complex
developments. We must view it all as an evolving system. He is the author of
the philosophy of Gea - the entire earth is a single complex living organism that
always evolves as a single organism.
He asked instead what kind of a process is required to create such symbiosis and
his answer was: co-evolution. These two species couldn't have developed
independently and then discover that one can become a parasite on the other.
The chances for such coincidence are infinitesimal. As this happens over and over
again everywhere, all through the fossil history, it cannot be a chance. He concluded
that nature develops as a system. This is what he means by co-evolution, but this
also implies that our entire view of biology is wrong, because we view it as a collection
of independent species, which we can't do if we wish to explain these complex
developments. We must view it all as an evolving system. He is the author of
the philosophy of Gea - the entire earth is a single complex living organism that
always evolves as a single organism.
Lynn Margulis came to the same conclusion and adopted Maturana's aproach.
She states that our cells are an outcome of the symbiosis between a proto-virus
and a proto-bacteria that combined DNA into one! She was horribly attacked for
about two decades. Her academic career was ruined and her husband left her
for a complete idiot (like himself). Then DNA analysis proved her theory.
and a proto-bacteria that combined DNA into one! She was horribly attacked for
about two decades. Her academic career was ruined and her husband left her
for a complete idiot (like himself). Then DNA analysis proved her theory.
The phenomena that Maturana and Margulis observed challenged the Darwinistic
view of evolution. For that reason their theories were found problematic by
the mainstream scientific community and instantly rejected without a proper evaluation.
view of evolution. For that reason their theories were found problematic by
the mainstream scientific community and instantly rejected without a proper evaluation.
Dan Shechtman
Years ago Dan Shechtman worked as usual in his lab but this time he happened
to accidentally observe something interesting through his electron microscope.
He could not believe it as there was no such "creature" known in existence.
His finding of quasicrystals was so unusual he checked it several times and took
the whole two years to publish his results in a peer-reviewed journal.
All these precautions did not help him. He was vehemently attacked and personally
disgraced by the the scientific community for challenging the existing state of
knowledge. Shechtman proposed to anyone to repeat his simple experiment as it
was easily replicated, but the community was not interested.
His persecution has not stop for years and Dan was traumatized.
Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate, said on a prominent conference in front of a large
scientific audience:
"Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense, there are no quasi-crystals, just quasi-scientists."
to accidentally observe something interesting through his electron microscope.
He could not believe it as there was no such "creature" known in existence.
His finding of quasicrystals was so unusual he checked it several times and took
the whole two years to publish his results in a peer-reviewed journal.
All these precautions did not help him. He was vehemently attacked and personally
disgraced by the the scientific community for challenging the existing state of
knowledge. Shechtman proposed to anyone to repeat his simple experiment as it
was easily replicated, but the community was not interested.
His persecution has not stop for years and Dan was traumatized.
Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate, said on a prominent conference in front of a large
scientific audience:
"Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense, there are no quasi-crystals, just quasi-scientists."
Almost 30 years later Dan Shechtman won a Nobel prize in chemistry for his discovery
of quasicrystals. Linus Pauling, until his death, refused to admit that quasicrystals exist.
of quasicrystals. Linus Pauling, until his death, refused to admit that quasicrystals exist.
Have you heard about Maturana, Margulis or Shechtman?
Do you know other scientists who were persecuted for their discoveries
by the community?
by the community?
Do you think there is a way to improve how academic community approaches
new discoveries or is it simply the way we humans are?
new discoveries or is it simply the way we humans are?
Sources:
https://msu.edu/course/lbs/145/luckie/margulis.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/worlds-deadliest/deadliest-zombie-snails
Comments
I do agree that being conservative has helped humanity to survive, especially in the harsh conditions. However, I have a feeling there is more to this. Specifically, that many times scientific community defends their ideas like Inquisition. There is no room for questions being asked. Don't you think it may stem from from their personal issues (their career being at stake, academic power struggle)?
People who are keep asking questions about the nature, the society, and so on, are the people who lead us to the brightest(or the darkest?) future :)
BTW Neil Tyson, I watched him in the YouTube show Hot Ones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da8-QfGemgo I was impressed with both his knowledge and his coolness! The presenter: you were voted "The sexiest astrophysicist" by People Magazine. Tyson: "that was 30 pounds ago".
Unfortunately, I don't know any other scientists who were persecuted for their discoveries.
I think the most known example of that situation were Galileo and Kopernik and how they were treated by the society.
Well, there has to be a way of improving that but being sceptical is a part of science as well - imagine what would happen if everyone believed that vaccines are actually harmful.
Everybody would like to believe, that scientists are honest and enlightened philantropes that want to make world a better place. Unfortunately, scientists are only humans and they have their flaws. The same with politicians and, actually, any other community.
I think anybody that has a revolutionary idea has to deal with conservative part of the community and there are plenty of examples of such people. Some of them are Gregor Mendel (genetic inheritance), Alfred Wegener (continental drifts), Amedeo Avogadro, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei or Aristarchus of Samos.
I believe that the most known scientisn, whom idea was rejected by everyone was Aristarchus of Samos and his heliocentric theory.
I believe what he wrote about became known as the banach-tarski paradox a few years later.
There's a video about it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA
Do you know if he preserved his writings?
I love Vsauce!
I really don't know about any others scientists that were persecuted for their discovieries, really.
Maybe there is a way to improve how academic community approaches new discoveries but I think that it will take a lot of time and probably some of the scientists would be against such changes. Most of them want to be remembered as someone who was right and if someone is undermining their discoveries- they are trying to defend their discoveries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yo2FluHZUc
Science evolves all the time, and so methods of proving it. I can't even count how many times we were wrong in the past, corrected our false knowledge, only to find out a few hundreds years later that it's wrong as well.
This goes all the time, personally I don't believe it's even possible to be 100% sure on anything, even the most researched things we can think of. There is no guarantee that somebody in 1000 years won't say "that assumption was good enough, but it was missing one interesting detail".
We should always keep in mind that what we believe in and take as a rule might be false, and always have open mind for change, regardless how much it's against our vision on particular thing.