October 12, 2005
Crank or Genius:
How Do You Tell the Difference?
Michael Lemonick
Science Editor, Time Magazine
Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the 64th Year
President William Haynes called to order the 5th meeting of the 64th year on an exceedingly wet Wednesday, October 12, 2005. President Haynes and John Frederick, in perfect harmony, led the invocation. Despite the weather, approximately 85 members were on hand.
Bob Miller read the minutes of the October 5 meeting. They covered a talk by William Rusher titled “The Growth of the Conservative Movement.”
Rosemary O’Brien presented her guest Claire Jacobus.
Dick Golden then introduced Michael Lemonick, Senior Editor and Science Editor for Time Magazine, whose topic was: Crank or Genius: How Do You Tell the Difference? He reviewed Michael’s background as a native of Princeton with a bachelor’s degree from Harvard in 1975 and a Master of Science degree in Journalism from Columbia in 1983. He teaches a course in Science Journalism at Princeton and has led a number of Freshman Seminars on a variety of science subjects. He has received numerous prestigious awards for science writing and has appeared on the Charlie Rose and Good Morning America shows. He has written for Audubon, Discover, The Washington Post, People, and Playboy. Dick Golden expressed some curiosity about the Playboy reference.
Michael began his talk and without delay explained the contents of the Playboy Magazine story, allaying the fears of those who might have thought it was salacious in nature. Actually it was about the planets around other stars. Apparently every so often Playboy runs articles like Michael’s so that the readers can say “I read Playboy for the articles.”
He said at the outset that he would not answer the question, “How Do You Tell the Difference between Crank and Genius?”
The reason is that scientists themselves don’t really have an answer. We think of science as a process where scientists reason, look at evidence, and render sober judgments about what is valid and what is not.
Scientists are, despite what the general public assumes, real people. They have their prejudices, preferences, and vested interests. They don’t necessarily respond to crazy ideas by embracing them. So the question as to who is a crank and who is the scientific genius is often not settled until long after the fact.
Michael then presented us with a wide array of cranks and the various results of their crankiness. Briefly here are two examples:
About ten years ago, two University of Utah chemists came up with a remarkable new way of achieving nuclear fusion that nobody had ever encountered. The process typically requires millions of degrees of heat to accomplish. The Utah chemists claimed to have done it on a simple table top apparatus, not requiring great heat, just an electro-chemical cell.
This event created a dilemma. It was so extraordinary that it generated much doubt. However, these were two respected chemists and they had been introduced at a press conference by the President of University of Utah who was a Harvard alumnus. How would Michael evaluate the situation? He would consult with experts in the field. He talked to the Director of the Plasma Physics Program at Princeton. He said it sounds crazy; it violates everything I know about fusion. However I have not seen their paper, nor the apparatus. He was properly dubious, but properly respectful. Several months passed. The Utah chemists would not share their data, would not perform the experiment. Something went wrong with their work. They were too embarrassed to admit it. They quit their jobs and fled.
Chalk one up for the cranks.
Next case. A couple of decades ago, a Dr. Marshall from Australia began to question the idea that ulcers were caused by stress. His theory was that ulcers were caused by bacteria. People were polite but strongly doubted him. Nobody took him seriously. Several weeks ago, Dr. Marshall shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that bacteria caused ulcers.
Chalk one up for the geniuses.
Michael concluded that the basic problem in researching the facts and debunking the cranks and lauding the science geniuses is the matter of time. Everybody is so busy – the scientists, the science writers, and of course the general public.
In many instances, it is the lengthy passage of time that helps to render the verdict – crank or genius.
Respectfully submitted,
Cranky Joe Bolster
Bob Miller read the minutes of the October 5 meeting. They covered a talk by William Rusher titled “The Growth of the Conservative Movement.”
Rosemary O’Brien presented her guest Claire Jacobus.
Dick Golden then introduced Michael Lemonick, Senior Editor and Science Editor for Time Magazine, whose topic was: Crank or Genius: How Do You Tell the Difference? He reviewed Michael’s background as a native of Princeton with a bachelor’s degree from Harvard in 1975 and a Master of Science degree in Journalism from Columbia in 1983. He teaches a course in Science Journalism at Princeton and has led a number of Freshman Seminars on a variety of science subjects. He has received numerous prestigious awards for science writing and has appeared on the Charlie Rose and Good Morning America shows. He has written for Audubon, Discover, The Washington Post, People, and Playboy. Dick Golden expressed some curiosity about the Playboy reference.
Michael began his talk and without delay explained the contents of the Playboy Magazine story, allaying the fears of those who might have thought it was salacious in nature. Actually it was about the planets around other stars. Apparently every so often Playboy runs articles like Michael’s so that the readers can say “I read Playboy for the articles.”
He said at the outset that he would not answer the question, “How Do You Tell the Difference between Crank and Genius?”
The reason is that scientists themselves don’t really have an answer. We think of science as a process where scientists reason, look at evidence, and render sober judgments about what is valid and what is not.
Scientists are, despite what the general public assumes, real people. They have their prejudices, preferences, and vested interests. They don’t necessarily respond to crazy ideas by embracing them. So the question as to who is a crank and who is the scientific genius is often not settled until long after the fact.
Michael then presented us with a wide array of cranks and the various results of their crankiness. Briefly here are two examples:
About ten years ago, two University of Utah chemists came up with a remarkable new way of achieving nuclear fusion that nobody had ever encountered. The process typically requires millions of degrees of heat to accomplish. The Utah chemists claimed to have done it on a simple table top apparatus, not requiring great heat, just an electro-chemical cell.
This event created a dilemma. It was so extraordinary that it generated much doubt. However, these were two respected chemists and they had been introduced at a press conference by the President of University of Utah who was a Harvard alumnus. How would Michael evaluate the situation? He would consult with experts in the field. He talked to the Director of the Plasma Physics Program at Princeton. He said it sounds crazy; it violates everything I know about fusion. However I have not seen their paper, nor the apparatus. He was properly dubious, but properly respectful. Several months passed. The Utah chemists would not share their data, would not perform the experiment. Something went wrong with their work. They were too embarrassed to admit it. They quit their jobs and fled.
Chalk one up for the cranks.
Next case. A couple of decades ago, a Dr. Marshall from Australia began to question the idea that ulcers were caused by stress. His theory was that ulcers were caused by bacteria. People were polite but strongly doubted him. Nobody took him seriously. Several weeks ago, Dr. Marshall shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that bacteria caused ulcers.
Chalk one up for the geniuses.
Michael concluded that the basic problem in researching the facts and debunking the cranks and lauding the science geniuses is the matter of time. Everybody is so busy – the scientists, the science writers, and of course the general public.
In many instances, it is the lengthy passage of time that helps to render the verdict – crank or genius.
Respectfully submitted,
Cranky Joe Bolster