Ridiculed Crystal Work Wins Nobel for Israeli

**Oneironaut Zero** · 10-08-2011 04:08 AM

Another example of dogma falling at the hands of good science.

Ridiculed crystal work wins Nobel for Israeli | Reuters

**Original Poster** · 10-08-2011 05:23 AM

This article makes me so happy. After the Scientific Community and Israeli Community basically shunned him, refusing to give his theory any more attention than laughter, they all have to eat their words. Success is the best form of revenge, especially when its success for an idea greater than yourself. This man is a hero for modern science.

**tommo** · 10-08-2011 06:45 AM

pwned lol I agree with omnis.

Did the other scientists even give his work a look? Or try to replicate it?

**cmind** · 10-08-2011 03:47 PM

Ridiculed is a strong word. They thought he was incorrect, but there's a big difference between that and the ridicule you get for thinking bigfoot exists. Just keep that in mind.

**Oneironaut Zero** · 10-08-2011 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by cmind

Ridiculed is a strong word. They thought he was incorrect, but there's a big difference between that and the ridicule you get for thinking bigfoot exists. Just keep that in mind.

The article kind of tells a different story, IMHO. I think 'suffering years' of 'being laughed at', having 'a crusade mounted against him' and people coming up with pithy little saying about him such as 'there are no quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists', is a little closer to ridicule than just thinking someone is wrong.

**Xei** · 10-08-2011 03:54 PM

There will always be a small number of stick-in-the-muds with stupid attitudes. The great thing about science is that their opinions don't matter one iota; if you have objective reality on your side then there is nothing anybody can do to stop it becoming accepted.

**Original Poster** · 10-08-2011 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

There will always be a small number of stick-in-the-muds with stupid attitudes. The great thing about science is that their opinions don't matter one iota; if you have objective reality on your side then there is nothing anybody can do to stop it becoming accepted.

This is unfortunately not just a small number but usually the majority of the community. While truth is on your side, an idea is still just an idea, especially when it's presented to people unwilling to replicate or consider it.

**Wayfaerer** · 10-08-2011 05:49 PM

Yeah, I would say there's more than just a few scientists with stupid attitudes toward the progress of science. Much of it is taken too personally, and though the objective evidence is the only judge, it tends to drag some people who don't like it for some personal reason "kicking and screaming" to accept it. People like that can delay progress on the practical level, especially if they're in a position of "authority"

which I think is a concept that has no place in science.

**cmind** · 10-08-2011 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The article kind of tells a different story, IMHO. I think 'suffering years' of 'being laughed at', having 'a crusade mounted against him' and people coming up with pithy little saying about him such as 'there are no quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists', is a little closer to ridicule than just thinking someone is wrong.

I guess you missed my point entirely. There's a big difference between challenging the idea that all crystals are periodic (a subtlety of chemistry that most people don't even know or care about and is only discussed in conferences and journals) and believing in things like bigfoot, ESP, ghosts, etc.

Of course people 'in the know' will take this stuff very seriously and engage in name-calling, but the fact is, he was still well within the scientific mainstream. My point is, some people here will use this as an excuse to advance their own quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific ideas about god knows what, citing this guy as an example of "the establishment being wrong".

**Oneironaut Zero** · 10-08-2011 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by cmind

My point is, some people here will use this as an excuse to advance their own quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific ideas about god knows what, citing this guy as an example of "the establishment being wrong".

Ah, I got ya. Point taken, and I agree.

**Photolysis** · 10-08-2011 07:02 PM

Sounds like one of two things happened:

1) The evidence wasn't good enough to back up the claims, which would make it bad science.

2) The evidence was there, but people within the field refused to look at it and try to replicate it, which would make it bad science.

Still, ultimately this was corrected in the end.

**Wayfaerer** · 10-08-2011 07:03 PM

What I don't get is how people could disagree at all with something as directly objective as this. The crystal exists... they just had to look.

**Xei** · 10-08-2011 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This is unfortunately not just a small number but usually the majority of the community. While truth is on your side, an idea is still just an idea, especially when it's presented to people unwilling to replicate or consider it.

Except scientists will rush to try to replicate any exciting result as fast as possible.

Scientists become renowned for being contrarian; no scientist became famous by changing nothing.

Yet another of the strengths of the philosophy.

**Oneironaut Zero** · 10-08-2011 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

Except scientists will rush to try to replicate any exciting result as fast as possible.

Scientists become renowned for being contrarian; no scientist became famous by changing nothing.

Yet another of the strengths of the philosophy.

I think the point is that, the more comfortable 'certain' scientists get with an established principle, the less-likely many of them are to go through the inconvenience of testing a theory that they already feel is bullshit.

It's not so much a problem with 'science', itself. It's a problem with some of the egos that often act as the base of the scientific community, when unchecked. I'm sure there is no small number of scientists who were ridiculed for their own findings, just as this man was. He's just one of them that actually persevered through it all.

**Xei** · 10-08-2011 08:56 PM

I doubt there has ever been any scientist who did not persevere through it all, considering you objectively know that everybody else is wrong.

Like you say, it is not a problem with science, the central strength of science being its total inviolability from dogma, opinion or tradition. Anybody not acting true to these principles is not acting as a scientist, and fortunately the way it works out is that there will always be a huge supply of contrarians to counter any dogmatists. Just look at cold fusion; that violates the first law of thermodynamics, which is far more deeply rooted than this crystal thing, and people tried to independently verify that hundreds of times, despite it being 'ridiculous'.

**Original Poster** · 10-08-2011 09:03 PM

You objectively know everybody else is wrong? That sounds like a Dogmatist, not a Scientist. It's true what they say, first an idea is ridiculed, then violently opposed, then accepted as common sense.

**Wayfaerer** · 10-08-2011 09:43 PM

In this case, he literally did objectively know the people who didn't believe him we're wrong, unless he considered the possibility that he hallucinated the atomic pattern lol.

**cmind** · 10-08-2011 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

Just look at cold fusion; that violates the first law of thermodynamics, which is far more deeply rooted than this crystal thing, and people tried to independently verify that hundreds of times, despite it being 'ridiculous'.

How does cold fusion violate the first law of thermodynamics?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

In this case, he literally did objectively know the people who didn't believe him we're wrong, unless he considered the possibility that he hallucinated the atomic pattern lol.

Could have been instrumentation error.

**Wayfaerer** · 10-09-2011 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by cmind

Could have been instrumentation error.

Well I'm sure he was a good enough scientist to make sure, because it wasn't.

**cmind** · 10-09-2011 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Well I'm sure he was a good enough scientist to make sure, because it wasn't.

I didn't say it was...

**Wayfaerer** · 10-09-2011 01:00 AM

I know, I'm saying that he probably made sure that he had the right to think his observation was real.

**tommo** · 10-09-2011 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by cmind

I guess you missed my point entirely. There's a big difference between challenging the idea that all crystals are periodic (a subtlety of chemistry that most people don't even know or care about and is only discussed in conferences and journals) and believing in things like bigfoot, ESP, ghosts, etc.

Of course people 'in the know' will take this stuff very seriously and engage in name-calling, but the fact is, he was still well within the scientific mainstream. My point is, some people here will use this as an excuse to advance their own quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific ideas about god knows what, citing this guy as an example of "the establishment being wrong".

This is true. Doesn't help that it's about crystals either!

However, quacks will find a way to do this no matter what. Mutilating science to further their own agenda.

**Xei** · 10-09-2011 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by cmind

How does cold fusion violate the first law of thermodynamics?

Well, you need a certain temperature to overcome the activation energy required to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei... as far as I know, cold fusion is totally at odds with known physics, that was all I was saying. Currently too drunk to look up further details... but the experiment was never successfully repeated anyway.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You objectively know everybody else is wrong? That sounds like a Dogmatist, not a Scientist.

Keep trying, maybe one day you'll make a good post.

(Read Wayfaerer's obvious response which was freely available to the common sense of everybody who understood the basic message of what I said).