Language
Country/Area
No result found
The blind spot of scientific genius: Why do some Nobel laureates believe in unproven theories?
Nobel disease, also known as Nobel complex, refers to some Nobel Prize winners holding strange or scientifically unfounded ideas in their later years. Regardless of whether the Nobel Prize was awarded, this situation seems to have never changed. Many laureates have greater confidence in themselves after winning the prize and dare to express opinions in their non-professional fields. However, it has not been confirmed whether this situation is limited to Nobel Prize winners. This phenomenon has attracted the attention and thinking of many scientists.
Paul Nurse, the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine, once warned subsequent laureates: “Don’t trust your expertise in almost anything and use the prestige of the Nobel Prize to confidently Express an opinion."
While it is unclear whether Nobel laureates are more susceptible to thinking errors than other scientists, the phenomenon provides an interesting example of how authority in one field does not necessarily mean authority in others. of authority. Although the achievement of winning the Nobel Prize can combine both intellectual and scientific talents, it is undeniable that this characteristic does not contradict irrationality.
As society's recognition of the Nobel Prize continues to increase, some laureates are willing to publish more personal research and opinions along with the honor. Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976, further elaborated on this phenomenon:
"I myself have been asked my opinion on everything from the cure for a cold to the market value of a letter signed by John F. Kennedy. There is no doubt that the attention (that comes from winning a Nobel Prize) is pleasant, but It will also cause corruption.”
Thus Friedman recommends creating more competitions to prevent problems caused by overconfidence outside of our abilities. However, such a large reputational product is not easily replaceable, and such complacency will perpetuate in the scientific community.
Examples of bad ideas
Among the many Nobel Prize winners, some have controversial beliefs or research positions. For example, Phillip Lenard, winner of the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics, supported the Nazi Party and actively promoted the distinction between German physics and Jewish physics.
Another example is Alexis Carrel, who won the Physiology or Medicine Prize in 1912 and became a supporter of Vichy France's eugenics policy.
"Charles Richet, winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, believed in extrasensory perception, paranormal activity and the existence of ghosts."
In addition, Linus Pauling, winner of the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, believed that high doses of vitamin C could prevent colds and that he could self-treat by taking large amounts of the vitamin.
This not only demonstrates the winners' persistence in certain ideas, but also triggers thinking about the boundaries of professional knowledge.
The "Apollo Project" of the Scientific Empire
In addition to Friedman's warnings, many other award-winning scientists expressed their views on things other than science later in life. For example, the 1973 Nobel Prize winner Nikolaas Tinbergen promoted the no longer recognized "refrigerator mother" hypothesis in his Nobel acceptance speech; and the 1993 Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis (Kary Mullis) They even put forward different views on the causes of HIV, believing that HIV is not the only cause.
These examples all point to an important question: Will the gap between authorities and non-authorities in the scientific community, in some cases, lead to the influence of their statements being overly expanded?
Conclusion
The honor of winning the Nobel Prize undoubtedly highlights an individual's contribution to the professional field, but it also brings with it a distorted sense of self-confidence, prompting these winners to sometimes make irrational judgments in non-professional fields. In such a context, should we be more cautious in interpreting the statements of these great scientists, especially on topics where they are outside the scope of their expertise?
