Nobel Prize winner rejects tyranny of consensus

” When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group, reports the Associated Press.

The AP goes on to report:

After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

The lesson?

“A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said.

The shy, 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it. [Emphasis added]

So much for the nonsensus.

4 thoughts on “Nobel Prize winner rejects tyranny of consensus”

  1. The scientific thesis for CAGW was at one time perhaps ten to fifteen years ago, still a a valid qualitative hypothesis.

    But time and further quantitative research such as the NASA satellites, including the devastating CERES rsults, and the Ocean Buoy evidence along with the Lindzen-Choi papers, and the historical weather records since 1996, has disproven the hypothesis. It is only the bitter-enders clinging to their lucrative Grant lifestyles, who refuse to admit the facts.

    OTOH, Political cynics are using these pathetic people, to advance their anti-capitalist politcal economy theories. But those people are truly invidious, since their political theories have been disproven in 96 countries over the last 168 years and they learn nothing from it. Any Scientist repeating a experiment that many times with ZERO success would have long abandoned it as False theory. Except that it is a way to Power and Influence for them, and misery for all others.

  2. I think it is a tribute to men and women of faith and conviction when this kind of success is recognized.

    There is no consensus of the theory, it is now fact. This is science, not the “consensus” mush we hear from so many in order to keep the government money flowing.

Comments are closed.