>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

Or to quote my mother “For an intelligent man, your father can be so dumb at times”

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

In fairness I doubt it is more prominent among that cohort than among the general population, but yes one might hope that the brightest are the best of us so it is sad when they are not.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

In fairness I doubt it is more prominent among that cohort than among the general population, but yes one might hope that the brightest are the best of us so it is sad when they are not.

I can only guess that Moll is very good at advanced physics and mathematics. That’s about it though.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

In fairness I doubt it is more prominent among that cohort than among the general population, but yes one might hope that the brightest are the best of us so it is sad when they are not.

Might I suggest the possibility that success at the highest level in scientific research requires the ability to question concepts that are widely held to be unquestionable, and to consider the possibility that concepts that are widely held to be completely batty might actually be true.

If that is the case, it doesn’t seem surprising that a fair number of these people should go on to accepting that these batty ideas are not only possible, but are actually true, even if there is good evidence against them. Especially when thinking outside their areas of expertise.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Especially when thinking outside their areas of expertise.

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

haven’t read the linked material, but the language in that quoted seems somewhat, well, how do I say, I mean what is a brilliant person for example, that appears to be a social attribution, the notion operates in the social field, is related status of sorts, so lends to ideology, ideas, devices such, miniature ideologies

things require work, effort (ignoring things that don’t for a moment), doesn’t matter if you’re thick as a plank or sharp as a razor

he once encountered a fluorescent raccoon that spoke to him (addressing him as “doctor”) and suggesting that the raccoon might have been an alien.

—-

He seems like a thoroughly sound chap.

Nah, I don’t buy the argument.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Especially when thinking outside their areas of expertise.

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Especially when thinking outside their areas of expertise.

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Only artists understand you godless technocrat.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

what a F’n’ Dick

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

what a F’n’ Dick

Thought I’d heard something like that before… Feynman…

furious said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

what a F’n’ Dick

Thought I’d heard something like that before… Feynman…

Plagarism in science? Well I never…

Witty Rejoinder said:

furious said:

SCIENCE said:

what a F’n’ Dick

Thought I’d heard something like that before… Feynman…

Plagarism in science? Well I never…

luckily in the creative world it’s called reinterpretation

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

What a coincidence.

Richard Feynman had exactly the same thoughts, years ago.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

What a coincidence.

Richard Feynman had exactly the same thoughts, years ago.

Anyone with an IQ.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

What a coincidence.

Richard Feynman had exactly the same thoughts, years ago.

He claimed that the economy is secondary to good health ¿

Wise man, give him the Nobel Prize.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

What a coincidence.

Richard Feynman had exactly the same thoughts, years ago.

He claimed that the economy is secondary to good health ¿

Wise man, give him the Nobel Prize.

Same as you cannot run an economy without an environment?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

What a coincidence.

Richard Feynman had exactly the same thoughts, years ago.

Anyone with an IQ.

I see that once again I was a little late with that comment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What a coincidence.

Richard Feynman had exactly the same thoughts, years ago.

Anyone with an IQ.

I see that once again I was a little late with that comment.

You are a true gentleman. ;)

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

You get that from celebrity chefs and celebrity tele evangelists too.

dv said:

In fairness I doubt it is more prominent among that cohort than among the general population, but yes one might hope that the brightest are the best of us so it is sad when they are not.

^

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

In fairness I doubt it is more prominent among that cohort than among the general population, but yes one might hope that the brightest are the best of us so it is sad when they are not.

^

There is a depth here that perception may have trouble with. Reminiscent of the depth of lock and drop in any other form of escapement.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

then they should get back in their box or not think outside of it.

;-)

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

You should have quietly admired the look and smell of the flower and then eaten it.

Ian said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

the whole “rationality is the antithesis of creativity” bullshit is pretty much as bullshit as “health is the antithesis of economy” really

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

You should have quietly admired the look and smell of the flower and then eaten it.

Most flowers are quite edible despite the toxic componenets of other of their plant component parts.

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

They’d better not include Madame Curie among those 8 thumbnails sketches. Despite the extreme unpopularity of her ideas now, she was right in promoting radium.

Linus Pauling wasn’t right. Glad they put him first in their list.

Watson really only got the Nobel prize by default. His original idea for how DNA worked was wrong. Watson made a career out of doing what people told him not to do.

The first five on the list didn’t go off-beam too far. Not as far off rationality as the average man in the street, or politician.

The sixth “he once encountered a fluorescent raccoon that spoke to him”, um, well.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

>Intelligence and rationality are not the same thing. Brilliant people can espouse terrible ideas, and genius in one area of achievement does not grant one immunity from lapses in critical thinking. In the cover feature of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, four scholars tackle the so-called Nobel Disease, “the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas.” Focusing on the cases of eight different Nobel laureates, they find that “even highly intelligent people may neglect to exercise their critical thinking capacities when they are insufficiently motivated to do so, especially when they are certain they are right.”

The Nobel Disease: Eight Thumbnail Sketches

They’d better not include Madame Curie among those 8 thumbnails sketches. Despite the extreme unpopularity of her ideas now, she was right in promoting radium.

Linus Pauling wasn’t right. Glad they put him first in their list.

Watson really only got the Nobel prize by default. His original idea for how DNA worked was wrong. Watson made a career out of doing what people told him not to do.

The first five on the list didn’t go off-beam too far. Not as far off rationality as the average man in the street, or politician.

The sixth “he once encountered a fluorescent raccoon that spoke to him”, um, well.

My god !

He sees the raccoon too!