Weird Book

Computer, a magazine published by the IEEE Computer Society, runs a monthly column called At Random by Bob Colwell, and in the August, 2002, issue it's about weird books. The first half of the column reviews one weird book in particular that I think illustrates the oft-occurring and fascinating lack of correlation between scientific accomplishment and one's ability to think scientifically.The book is Dancing Naked in the Mind Field by Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in medicine for his development of the polymerase chain reaction essential to the DNA sequencing process and key to decipherment of the HIV virus. You can find the full column at Weird Books, but following are excerpts from the Colwell review:

...
I don't know anyone trained in the scientific method who believes astrology is anything other than a time-tested way of separating the gullible from their money. But picture, if you will, a person who has achieved demigod status in our modern age by receiving the Nobel Priize in a scientific discipline and yet also believes in astrology.
...
It's eerie to realize that a person capable of the highest levels of rational thought, with an evident gift for clearly explaining the role and proper handling of DNA evidence, could nevertheless convey such a thoroughly contorted view of the judicial system. [Mullis assisted the defense in the O. J. Simpson trial.]
...
But then the next chapter presents a lucid discussion of the philosophy of modern science. I don't agree with all of it. In fact, some of it seems erroneous: "At a certain level in physicsthe realm of the smallest thingscalculus means nothing. It is too dependent on time and space." I like popular treatises on hard science as much as anybody, but they must be right, and they must make sense. As far as I know, the Schrdinger equation is believed to hold for any quantum particle or aggregation thereof. The math quickly gets beyond our ability to solve, but that is not the same as saying it "means nothing."
...
Mullis relates how his life was saved by someone "traveling the astral plane" who reached out and pulled a freezing gas tube from his mouth while he was unconscious, thus saving his life. Okay, strange things happen. And when they happen to me, they can take on an immediacy that may seem quite compelling.

​

But if you believe in scientific methodssomething Mullis is quite adamant about elsewhere in his bookit would seem they should apply quite well to the idea of traveling, astrally or otherwise. Instead, Mullis seems content to approach the subject on its own terms, excusing it from the scrutiny he insists on applying to, for example, HIV and AIDS.
...
However, my confidence was not boosted by finding this chapter sandwiched between the one referring to the astral plane and the next one describing his encounter with a glowing raccoon in a forest.

​

According to Mullis, this glowing raccoon not only spoke to him, but called him by name. I mean, what are the odds that a raccoon would glow in the first place, much less be able to speakand also know his name? This just has to be a million-to-one occurrence. As usual, the chapter is very well written. But it's close enough to the terminally weird end of the scale that the author's earlier references to having taken LSD keep coming to mind.
...
And then there's astrology. Mullis defends his belief in astrology on the grounds that three people correctly guessed he is a Capricorn. Mullis says, "I was born at 17:58 GMT on 28 December 1944 in Lenoir, North Carolina. You can find out more about me from that than you can from reading this book." I beg to differ. I'm a Capricorn, too, and I have nothing like this author's positive genius for constantly straddling the line between science and flaming irrationality.

--Percy

I've read a couple other articles recently that are in the same vein as the first message (intelligent people believing weird things) and rather than trying to weave them into an existing discussion I thought I'd post comments about one here.Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine, has a monthly column titled Skeptic that appears in Scientific American, and in the September issue the column's title is Smart People Believe Weird Things. A few excerpts:

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.
...
Education by itself is no paranormal prophylactic.
...
We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing.
...
The key here is teaching how science works, not just what science has discovered.

I disagree with Shermer's conclusion. The predilections he alludes to in his opening prevent any amount of acquired knowledge from overcoming cherished beliefs.--Percy

quote:

---

I mean, what are the odds that a raccoon would glow in the first place, much less be able to speak and also know his name?

---

Something I've been asking all my life!-Neil

So Percy...have you read any more Weird Books Lately?

Although this isn't strictly to do with a scientist believing odd things, you reminded me of Arthur Conan Doyle - creator of the arch-rationalist Holmes, and sincere believer in spiritualism. You've probably heard of this before - but if you haven't there's stuff about on the net.Also, and this one's more of a bone fide scientist, there's Isaac Newton. Principia Mathematica is all pretty straight stuff (or so I hear - never having laid eyes on it myself), but he was also a dedicated tinkerer with the semi-occult, and fan of alchemy. Admittedly, the turning of base metals into gold was probably not quite so scientifically suspect in its time - but I get the impression that it was still a little marginal.Perhaps these are just isolated examples, even if they do demonstrate a common pattern. But perhaps there is something to be said for the relationship between the rational and the visionary. I'd be interested if anyone could offer further examples of this kind of thing.

This sounds a bit like the thin line between genius and madness idea.It may be that we just notice a touch of madness more if it comes from someone considered highly intelligent.I'm not really applying the following to Newton, very much a man of his times, or Conan Doyle, who perhaps had a strong desire for things like the existence of fairies that made him vulnerable to a hoax, but who didn't actually see the fairies himself.There's no reason why good scientists shouldn't suffer from neurological conditions, just like the rest of us. Anyone can develop a condition that could lead them to seeing luminous talking raccoons in the woods, and such people can still be capable of impressive achievements in practical life.So, a mild touch of schizophrenia or epilepsy is my explanation for the "weird book" in Percy's O.P.If we consider that we may all have slight glitches in the brain (I had a few very odd deja vu experiences when I was a kid) then it's just a matter of degree, perhaps, when someone gets to the point where we could definitely define an illness.Some people seem more likely to see ghosts than others. Having "extra-sensory perception", and having a very mild neurological condition may be one and the same things.I think it's about 1% of the population that suffers from schizophrenia. So, if 1% of scientists have the condition, we can expect the occasional weird book to appear!

Personally I'm not a massive fan of the 'genius and madness' trope - or at least, the popular imagining of it; there might be something in it somewhere, I don't know.I didn't get much satisfaction out of A Beautiful Mind for instance, a modern manifestation of the idea the springs to mind, though there are hundreds of others. Its all a bit easy, and doesn't really have very much explanatory or predictive power, so it ends up just looking like a way of lumping unusual people together in an attempt to account for their unusualness.