The Way of Science

One Right, One Wrong: Wegener and Lysenko

So far, we have developed some basics on how scientists weigh evidence. You have seen that although the public frequently regards extraordinary claims as valid, the bulk of the scientific specialists views these "heresies" as very unlikely to be correct. (If you don't know what "heresy" and "heretical" mean, look them up now.) The cases we have examined in some detail (Geller, the Bermuda Triangle) were shown to be very weak when examined in the light of scientific methods. Even though some scientists were guilty of very sloppy thinking (Targ and Puthoff, Phillips in Project Alpha), those scientists were working outside their areas of training.

On the other hand, we do not want you to fall into the trap of assuming that the scientific community is always right, or that simply "playing by the rules" will always lead to correct conclusions. Far from it! Remember, there are no absolutes in science.

Is it possible that a majority of trained scientists could be wrong in their own field? Is the public ever on the "right side" in cases of scientific heresy? For next 10 weeks, we will examine cases of conflict: conflict among scientists of a single discipline ("continental drift") and conflict between scientists and the public (including political and religious arms of the public). As we do this task, we will introduce some fundamental unifying ideas in the disciplines of geology, biology, and physics.

We will begin with an overview of the problem of conflict by reading a short essay by Isaac Asimov. You may wish to read more of his works; he was, in our opinion, the pre-eminent writer on science for the non-scientist. Some of his 300-plus books are in the College Library.

"Asimov's Corollary" briefly examines many examples of conflict (both within a scientific field, and between scientists and non-scientists) and draws some interesting conclusions based on this history. His point is simple: we may learn from history, and perhaps avoid repeating past mistakes.

After Asimov's overview, we will consider following four cases in some detail.


1. Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift: Here, the majority of scientists in one field were wrong, and the "heretic" was right. As Asimov pointed out, the public didn't even know that a scientific revolution was taking place. As we examine this conflict, you will become familiar with a fundamental unifying theory in geology: Plate Tectonics. Note that the old heresy now has become the new orthodoxy, demonstrating that science is a self-correcting system. If you don't know what "orthodox" means, look that up also.
   
   
2. We will begin looking at the conflict between scientists and the public with the case of Lysenko in USSR. In order to understand why Lysenkoism was, and still is, a scientific heresy, we must first give you some background on the fundamental unifying principle in biology: Theory of Evolution.
   
   
3. After Lysenko, we will try to draw parallels between what happened in the USSR (political interference with science) and events in the US. First, we'll consider Laetrile, then we'll move to what we consider a major parallel, the Creationists.
   
   
4. After Plate Tectonics and Evolution as examples of conflict, we will consider one more case. One might ask this question: Is there an example of scientists predicting global disaster, only to be essentially ignored by the bulk of the world? We believe the answer is clearly "yes"; many scientists, particularly biologists, have been saying for decades that humans are degrading the global environment to such a degree that much of life is in serious danger. Human overpopulation, destruction of habitats, particularly rain forests, mass extinction of species, loss of clean air and water, and many other disasters are predicted for the near future; we cannot consider all of them. We will look at some of the evidence for one facet of this enormous problem: the loss of biodiversity.

Asimov's Corollary

Reading assignment:

1. (#7j) Asimov, I. 1979. Asimov's Corollary. Skeptical Inquirer 3(3): 58-67.

Be sure to prepare the answers to the following questions:

What is "Clarke's Law"? State and explain it in your own words. Then do the same for Asimov's Corollary. What's a "corollary"?

In doing these two explanations, use three components: (1) elderly and distinguished scientists; (2) usually younger scientists proposing and supporting a scientific "heresy"; and (3) the non-science public. Be sure to support your explanations with appropriate evidence based on specific historical figures, including Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, Jenner, Pauling, Rutherford, Velikovsky, and Von Däniken. If you are unfamiliar with the scientists, try looking in your text.