Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been discussing How “They” See “Us,” which is basically that “they” see “us” as pure evil. Well, maybe not always sheer evil, but certainly not good, and even more certainly as having ulterior motives, the most common of which is filthy pharma lucre. As a result, when a grant deadline approached, I reposted a post about the “pharma shill gambit.” However, how do these brave maverick doctors see themselves? Given that I’m traveling (and my plans have been impacted by the big storm heading through Kansas and Missouri now, it seemed appropriate given that I didn’t have time to write a new post last night to revive a post about how cranks and their supporters see themselves. So enjoy this bit of Classic Insolence from way back near the beginning of this blog, when I first coined the term “Galileo gambit” to describe a very common gambit used by quacks. At least, I think I was the first to coin this term. I haven’t been able to find a reference to the “Galileo Gambit” dating before I wrote the original version of this post way back in 2005. In any case, if there are any really “classic” posts on this blog (which, I’ll concede, is debatable, this is one, IMHO, and I haven’t reposted it here since 2006; so it’s time. Maybe I should do a more substantial revision and update it, as I’ve noticed some dead links I apologize, as I didn’t have the time to go through and either update them, created Archive.org links, or change the text. Oh, well. Finally, this particular post is very appropriate to what I traveled here, now taking the brunt of the storm, to do. Sadly, the storm has interfered, as it would have been a hell of a lot of fun.
The appearance of the Herbinator on my blog last week and his sarcastic invocation of Galileo reminded me of a topic I’ve wanted to write about almost since the beginning of Respectful Insolence. It’s a favorite tactic used by alties (not to mention pseudoscientists, pseudohistorians, and other cranks). Alties frequently invoke Galileo and other scientists like Ignaz Semmelweiss, who were at first rejected by the scientific orthodoxy of the time and had to fight to get their ideas accepted. The implication, of course, is that their ideas, whatever they may be (alternative medicine, intelligent design, Holocaust denial, psychic abilities, etc.), are on the same plane as those of Galileo or Semmelweiss. Frequently, they will add a list of famous scientists or experts who made predictions about the impossibility of something or other and were later found wrong, so much so that the statements sound ridiculous today. For example, here’s a famous list that’s been making the rounds on Usenet for years. Some of these quotes may in fact be urban legends (and, in fact, I’d be grateful to anyone who points out urban legends in here to me), but let’s for the moment assume they are all legitimate quotes:
..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value. – Committee advising Ferdinand and Isabella regarding Columbus’ proposal, 1486
I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones fell from the sky. – Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitness report of falling meteorites.
Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy. – Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction. – Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
[Orac's note: This one is particularly amusing to me, given that so many alties reject Pasteur's theory in favor of Beauchamps. Here, they seem to want to have it both ways. They reject Pasteur when arguing against antibiotics, claiming that bacteria are not the cause of disease, or attacking vaccines as useless and harmful. However, they have no problem invoking this quote. Of course, they don't seem to realize that their use of this quote implicitly acknowledges that Pasteur's theories, although initially quite controversial, were ultimately proven correct.]
The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon. – Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
[Orac's note: As a surgeon, I have to point out that, at the time, this was not an entirely unreasonable statement. Operating in the abdomen was risky in the extreme, with a high rate of death from peritonitis that could approach 50% in some operations (that is, until the invention of antibiotics). In fact, I sometimes wonder how the great surgeons of 100 years ago managed to operate on anyone's abdomen and have the patient actually survive the procedure. Operating in the chest was also out of the question, given the problem of reinflating the lung afterward, and certainly the brain was completely off-limits. In any case, there was no way Sir Ericksen (or anyone else) could be faulted for failing to forsee the advancements in anaesthesia, antibiotics, surgical technique, and patient care that would ultimately allow such surgery to succeed and even become routine (although one does have to point out that surgeons were already operating in the abdomen reasonably successfully at the time).]
Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievious to to its true progress. – Sir William Siemens, 1880, on Edison’s announcement of a sucessful light bulb.
We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy. – Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888
Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever. – Thomas Edison, 1889
[Orac's note: It's well-known that Thomas Edison wanted to promote the use of direct current rather than alternating current. It was a battle of rival technologies (sometimes called the War of Currents), not unlike the war between Betamax and VHS, but on a much larger scale. Edison ultimately lost.]
The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. – physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. – Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere. – Thomas Edison, 1895
The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be. – astronomer S. Newcomb, 1906
Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. – Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Those officers and men are wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war. – Fourth Lord of the British Admiralty, 1915, in regards to use of tanks in war.
Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools. – 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work.
[Orac's note: Why the New York Times would be considered an "expert" in rocketry such that it would be of interest to use it as an example of an "expert" making a statement that is later proven wrong, I have no idea. This quote is at best irrelevant.]
The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular? – David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
“All a trick.” “A Mere Mountebank.” “Absolute swindler.” “Doesn’t know what he’s about.” “What’s the good of it?” “What useful purpose will it serve?” – Members of Britain’s Royal Society, 1926, after a demonstration of television.
This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists. -A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926
Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? – H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.
Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. – Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
[Orac's note: Of course, we had the same sort of idiotic statements coming from "experts" during the Internet bubble of the 1990's; for example, this book predicting that the Dow would reach 36,000. How many times did we hear that the Internet "changed everything" and that the stock market had no where to go but continually up?]
There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. — Albert Einstein, 1932
The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine. – Ernst Rutherford, 1933
The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]…presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author’s insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished. Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator’s Rockets in Space, Nature, March 14, 1936
Space travel is utter bilge! -Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wolley, astronomer
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. – Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. – Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
[Orac's note: Heh heh. This statement isn't an incorrect prediction. Think about it. Most computers don't weigh more than 1.5 tons these days, do they?]
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year. – The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
Space travel is bunk. -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States. -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961
We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out. – Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
But what… is it good for? – Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. – Ken Olson, President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible. – A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face and not Gary Cooper. – Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in Gone With The Wind.
A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make. – Response to Debbi Fields’ idea of starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies.
If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this. – Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3M “Post-It” Notepads.
So we went to Atari and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And they said, ‘No.’ So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet.’ – Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer.
You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training. – Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the “unsolvable” problem by inventing Nautilus.
640K ought to be enough for anybody. – Bill Gates, 1981
[Orac's note: Of course, in 1981, Gates was correct. No one really needed more than 640K in a personal computer. There wasn't much you could actually do with more than that in 1981...]
So, again, what’s the point of alties or other pseudoscientists invoking Galileo or any of the hideously incorrect prognostications listed above? Again, obviously, this technique seeks to denigrate the experts who reject the altie’s claims as not knowing what they’re talking about or as close-minded, unable to have the vision that they do. It also deceptively tries to associate the quack, crank, pseudoscientist, or pseudohistorian with the theories and findings of great visionaries that went against conventional wisdom and were thus rejected by the experts of the day–and then later shown to be correct. It’s a transparent ploy, about which Michael Shermer once said, “Heresy does not equal correctness.”
Some call it the Galileo gambit (although in actuality Galileo is probably a bad example for pseudoscientists to use, given that he was persecuted by the Church, and not by his fellow scientists). History is indeed full of tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of the day in his or her field of study. No doubt there are still a fair number of such scientists today. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending upon your point of view), the vast majority of them turn out to be utterly wrong. They disappear into the mists of history, leaving not even a footnote in the grand history of science. As Shermer so correctly put it in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (a book I highly recommend to anyone interested in improving his or her critical thinking skills):
For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose ‘truths’ never pass scientific muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fanstastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent.
For every Galileo, Ignaz Semmelweis, Nicolaus Copernicus, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, etc., whose scientific ideas were either ignored, rejected, or vigorously attacked by the scientific community of his time and then later accepted, there are untold numbers of others whose ideas were either ignored or rejected initially and then were never accepted–and never will be accepted. Why? Because they were wrong! The reason the ideas of Galileo, Semmelweis, Copernicus, Darwin, Pasteur, et al, were ultimately accepted as correct by the scientific community is because they turned out to be correct! Their observations and ideas stood up to repeated observation and scientific experimentation by many scientists in many places over many years. The weight of data supporting their ideas was so overwhelming that eventually even the biggest skeptics could no longer stand. That’s the way science works. It may be messy, and it may take longer, occasionally even decades or even longer, than we in the business might like to admit, but eventually in science the truth wins out. In fact, the best way for a scientist to become famous and successful in his or her field is to come up with evidence that strongly challenges established theories and concepts and then weave that evidence into a new theory. Albert Einstein didn’t end up in the history books by simply reconfirming and recapitulating Newton’s Laws. Semmelweis and Pasteur didn’t wind up in the history books by confirming the concept that disease was caused by an “imbalance of humours” (although Semmelweis probably did hurt himself by refusing to publish his results for many years; his data was so compelling it remains puzzling why he did not do so). I daresay that none of the Nobel Prize winners won that prestigious award by demonstrating something that the scientific establishment already believed. No! They won it by discovering something new and important!
Unfortunately, to most lay people who don’t have a strong background in science, the scientific method, or the history of science, such trickery can sound convincing on the surface. For example, you have a quack like Hulda Clark claiming she has a cure for cancer and AIDS and then claiming that the scientific establishment can’t accept it. Add a dash of paranoia about big medicine and big pharma “suppressing” her “cure,” and it’s a potent brew of deception. This ploy is particularly appealing to Americans, because our whole national psyche has in its core a tendency to root for the outsider, the underdog. Alties, pseudoscientists, and cranks tap into that deep-seated sympathy we tend to have for the persecuted outsider and use it to their advantage. It’s the same with creationists, who use every well-deserved debunking they get as evidence that they are a “threat” to the established scientific order. The only way to combat such deceptive comparisons is to point out again and again Shermer’s dictum that “heresy does not equal correctness” and try to keep the discussion on the hard evidence.
I think it’s appropriate to finish with another Michael Shermer quote: They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right.
Use it the next time an altie tries to imply that the fact that the scientific establishment mocks their ideas means that they must be on to something. Except do what I do and use the Three Stooges instead of the Marx Brothers.
Especially Curly. Nyuck, nyuck, nyck.