Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Crank Science
Message-ID: <523@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 09:03:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.523
Posted: Sun Aug 11 09:03:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 03:05:52 EDT
References: <389@iham1.UUCP> <14600031@hpfcrs.UUCP> <488@utastro.UUCP> <628@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 68

> >On the other hand, if one fails to submit ones research to such
> >scrutiny, one as much as admits that it is not worthy of
> >serious consideration.  Creationists sometimes complain that their
> >work would be automatically rejected, but the fact of the matter is that
> >they have barely put that hypothesis to the test.  A recent study
> >showed that Creationists have submitted *hardly anything*
> >for publication in refereed journals (except for submissions, not related
> >to Creationism, in their own fields of expertise).
> >
> 	And in fact some Creationists *do* get published in refereed
> journals, look at all the references to Dr. Gentry in the 116 Reasons
> pamphlet. These come the *closest* of anything in it to being real
> evidence. At least I feel I must treat them seriously.

Gentry's work is a very interesting example of exactly what I was
talking about in this paragraph.  His research on polonium haloes and
haloes in coalified wood is solid, if highly specialized science of
the kind done every day by the vast majority of scientists.  He did
it according to the rules, it passed muster and was published.  
Under ordinary circumstances, it would  have made its contribution
to its field in some way, according to its importance.

It is elsewhere,when Gentry started making outlandish claims as to
the significance of this work that he moved out of the mainstream of
science and into the fringes of Crank Science.  Despite the fact that
there are several quite plausible explanations of his anamolous
findings, he has insisted that the *only* way they can be understood
is by adopting an extreme position as regards the creation of the Earth,
that completely overturns all of the rest of science.  This is hardly
an "Occam's Razor" approach! After all, scientists are *always*
discovering anomalous data, most of which are understood in time.  If
we adopted Gentry's attitude, we would never accomplish anything.  As
has been pointed out many times here, it is unlikely that any single
experiment or observation would ever, in itself, cause a scientific
revolution.  Such things happen only when the weight of many
unresolvable anomalies forces a change of perspective.

Sir Fred Hoyle is another example.  Much of his earlier work was of
great significance, and his work with the Burbidges and with Fowler
(of recent Nobel Prize fame) on the origin of elements is still absolutely
fundamental and absolutely first-class.  But in recent years he seems
to have moved decidedly towards the fringes.  He appears to harbor
a flickering hope that his now-discredited Steady-State theory of the
universe might be revived.  When it was proposed, the Steady-State
theory was respectable, nay, provocative science.  Perhaps more
basic research has been done in trying to resolve the Steady-State 
versus Big-Bang controversy than any other issue in modern astronomy.
But now, it has been cast upon the dustheap of astronomy, useful in
its day but hopelessly contradicted by new evidence.  Yet Sir Fred
has ranged farther and farther afield, into areas (such as biology and
the origins of life) in which he is not competent, searching for
ways to revive his theory.  Regrettably it is *this* that the
Creationists have picked up on.  It is really sad to see a good scientist
go off the deep end like this. 

So the point is that people can be good scientists, and the same
individuals (in other contexts) can be crank scientists.  It is 
often difficult for those on the outside looking in to tell the
difference.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)