On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope <[email protected]>wrote:
> Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without > being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on > the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? > > Perpetual motion fits the first question. There are adherents to it that will claim it has not been debunked, and that's been centuries. There are a lot of medical claims that would also fit. Homeopathy, (straight) chiropractic, acupuncture, the vaccine-autism connection, psychic healing, or any paranormal phenomena. None of these are accepted by mainstream science, but will probably never be debunked to the satisfaction of their adherents. I have posed the latter is a question frequently, albeit qualified, and without a good response. There are some examples of theories or phenomena that took decades to be accepted, but not small-scale, bench-top type experiments. Examples include Wegener's continental drift, maybe black holes, and Lawrence cited a dinosaur theory. These are in fields that give up data greedily. The closest example of a small-scale theory that I have seen is Semmelweis's disinfection (hand-washing), which was ridiculed for a long time. But you have to go back 150 years for that example. I think most phenomena (especially in the physical sciences) that can be tested on a bench top, and that turn out to be real, were accepted pretty quickly. And revolutionary theories to explain a lot of well-established experimental results, like relativity and quantum mechanics were accepted almost as quickly as they were proposed. QM took time to be developed of course, but who could doubt that Bohr was on to something when quantization of the angular momentum reproduced the empirically determined Rydberg formula for atomic spectra? Rothwell likes to list various technologies that took time to develop, like the transistor and the laser (which did see some skepticism), but none of his favorite examples are anything close to case of cold fusion where the concept is rejected out of hand by the mainstream for 20 years. This year's nobel prize in chemistry represents another case of skepticism proved wrong. Shechtman's proposed quasicrystals were ridiculed (most vociferously by Linus Pauling who said there were no quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists), and he was kicked out of his research group. But the derision lasted only a couple of years, and he was published in PRL, at the height of it, and began getting awards soon after, culminating, in less than 20 years, in the nobel prize. Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right...
