July 30, 2005
It was written in the stars
"Biographies of Fred Hoyle from Simon Mitton and Jane Gregory tell the tale of a slighted genius, says Robin McKie."
From The Guardian:
Fred Hoyle died a wronged man. The cosmologist quit this world aged 86 in 2001, having done more than any other to explain how it came into existence. He did so by describing how the elements, the building blocks of our planet, were forged in cosmic furnaces across our galaxy.
For that feat, one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 01:27 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83458c0b969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It was written in the stars:
» It was written in the stars from Mensforth Hill
via 3 Quarks Daily: "Biographies of Fred Hoyle from Simon Mitton and Jane Gregory tell the tale of a slighted genius, says Robin McKie." From The Guardian: Fred Hoyle died a wronged man. The cosmologist quit this world aged 86... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 30, 2005 1:04:57 PM
Comments
Would not the most glaring omission of a Nobel Prize be the omission of one to Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev, born Feb. 7, 1834, Tobolsk; died Feb. 2, 1907, St. Petersburg, for the seminal discovery of the period table of the elements? This information came from the book "Biographical Encyclopedia of Scientists", John Daintith, Sarah Mitchell and Elizabeth Toothill, Facts on File, Inc., N.Y.,1981. The last paragraph of the entry for Mendeleev on page 546, Volume 2 is:
"Mendeleev became the most famous Russian scientist of his day and received numerous medals and prizes although not, surprisingly, the Nobel Prize (in 1906 it was awarded to Ferdinand Moissan by one vote). Element 101 was named mendelevium in his honor."
While the Nobel Committee does publish some information regarding their deliberations, it would be enlightening if they would publish much more in a timely fashion. In fact, why not publish everything, including all letters of recommendation for particular candidates? Scholars then could study how politics even enters this arena of human endeavor and how certain individuals are promoted over others, possibly in an attempt to promote certain dogma over others, or simply promote certain cronies at the expense of others, like the distinguished scientist Fred Hoyle. For example, garden variety prejudice could have entered the decision since this great scientist was never awarded a formal Ph.D. degree although he has, of course, received many honorary degrees and accolades over the years. The scientific community can be a very narrow, backbiting, prejudiced group, which operates largely in secret. Virtually all reviews of "scientific" papers are secret, as are the letters, held in secret by the Nobel Committee, preventing him from receiving that award. While scientists like to put on a good public image of objectivity, some may not like others because of the way "they part their hair" or even their religion. Someone of a particular religion might be hired or promoted over someone else, but one would never know because it is all secret. For example, I have heard stories of how word got around that a particular starting physicist was offered a position at a particular school, and a senior professor at an Ivy League school would call up and seek to knock off that individual in favor of one of his students. This is the dog eat dog atmosphere which exists in "science". In this way, even so-called "science" has become tainted with conflicts of interest, money, propaganda and public relations. Federal government grant money in the United States has only exacerbated the problem in recent years.
Posted by: Winfield J. Abbe | Jul 30, 2005 8:08:39 AM
Post a comment