One of my favorites is chemist John Newlands. He designed an early Periodic Table of Elements in the 1860's, based on observation that, in a list of elements in order by mass relative to hydrogen, every eighth element had properties similar to the first in the count. He connected this observation with music, in what he called the "Law of Octaves." Naturally he was ridiculed by his colleagues. But in the twentieth century, quantum mechanics found that the patterns of properties of elements could be explained by the arrangement of their electrons, and this in turn could be explained by vibrational modes. Similar vibrational modes apply to some musical instruments. For example, in one of the quantum mechanics courses I took in college, the textbook illustrated electron orbitals with analogy to vibrations of drumheads. So in a way, Newlands was on to something; he just didn't know what it was.
As a scientist .. the loose term they give me … I keep in mind the one doctor that said wash your hands … who was not only was discredited but was put in an insane asylum and died of gangrene… trust science??… I am one … and ya see me times no
Beatrix Potter proposed that lichens were a fungus and an algae living symbiotically. Her ideas were soundly rejected by the scientific community. she went on to write stories about rabbits and puddle ducks, becoming one of the world's greatest children's authors. She ran a large rural estate and, less successfully, championed tariff protection of cottage industries. She was eventually also recognised as the first biologist to accurately describe the lichens (posthumously). Nice one scientific community.
That's not true. Beatrix Potter was awesome and did do some scientific work in botany and mycology but It was a Swiss botanist called Schwenger who first proposed that lichens were algal/fungal symbionts, way before Potter was even born.
@@-yeme- I managed to find an article with the whole story. You were 100% right. Potter's proposal was nearly 50 years later. www.anbg.gov.au/fungi/case-studies/beatrix-potter.html Thanks for putting me on to that. 🍄🐇
At the time, it was super controversial to suggest that anything in the ecosystem could *work together*. The main viewpoint was that all life was in conflict and competition, eat or be eaten. This became a real issue during the Cold War, where american backed scientists championed the constant competition capitalistic model, while soviet scientists championed the communistic, working together model. The idea of symbiosis was so controversial and new that even when things calmed down and we started to discover other examples, they were described as having "lichenized" before the word symbiosis was coined, again, to describe lichen.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck, 1948
Charles Darwin said something similar, shortly after his On the Origin of Species was published. Writing to a friend, he said he had little hope the senior and established naturalists of the day would accept his theory, but put his faith in the younger generation.
Yeah, but it's not really true. Old guard is necessary, because it forces the vanguard to prove and refine their ideas so that they don't get accepted just for being new. At the same time, many old scientists adopt new discoveries because they become convinced, and if a new scientific discovery is proven it typically takes hold way before the old guard dies out. Einstein didn't buy what had become of quantum mechanics, but it didn't matter, it became the new deal pretty much at the height of Einstein's fame.
When I was in college studying geology (my minor), continental drift was not taught, just occasionally whispered about in deep, dark corners. Shortly after I graduated, the geologic world turned and Wegner was finally credited with the reality of continental drift.
John Snow, yes, REALLY, was a victorian era doctor who inadvertently invented epidemiology whilst trying to contain the many Cholera outbreaks in London. He, like many of the innovators of his time, was ignored because "the miasma in the air is the cause of sickness".
He also arguable invented GIS (geographic information systems), which is a huge deal now and all done digitally, but essentilaly involves mapping and overlaying geographic data to do analysis. His maps of cholera infections in London helped him realize that infections clustered near water wells, which is what made him realize that cholera was transmitted through water (or something similar, I learned this all a very long time ago and it's rusty). Those maps are still taught as the foundations of GIS in modern courses. There's also a really great popular nonfiction book about it called The Ghost Map.
@@erinm9445 Oh, I remember this from history class, correct. He noticed that all the cases were around a specific waterspout on broadstreet, with the only exceptions being a nearby workhouse, where few cases were reported due to it having its own water supply and a woman who lived miles away who, when asked, explained that she preferred water from the infected spout as it "tasted sweeter". I highly recommend checking out Jay Foreman's video about it if you haven't already.
You missed a very important one. An Australian family doctor discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria (h. Pylori) and cured people with pink bismuth and antibiotics. It took many years for other doctors, especially gastroenterologists to listen to him, but he just kept treating and curing people.
Semmelweis had actually gone crazy from frustration. (Or at least it seemed so, it may have been dementia) But his idea of sanitizer hand washing was heard, and followed by younger doctors. He had never realized how many people he had saved. Even some of his critics had mandated hand washing "just to be sure".
1. Ptolemy (crystal spheres). 2. Galen (anatomy and the four humours). 3. Johann Joachim Becher (phlogiston). 4. Robert Boyle (Luminiferous aether). 5. Aristotle (Spontaneous generation). How's that. I think we could list a dozen if we tried hard.
A lot of what Galen came up with was valid, the concept of comparative anatomy. On the other hand, much of his work was only inductive reasoning which ended up being invalidated. An example of science by consensus holding back advancement of discovery and understanding
Al Gore and his " We shall be under 5 metres of water by the end of the 20th century." There is a consensus among scientists, saying humans cause climate change {75 out of 3,400} Sorry he isn't a scientist.
I recall sitting in class as a 12 year old in 1969 and noticing that all the continents fit together like puzzle pieces, deducing that they must have drifted apart. Our teacher wasn't interested. Our school system was highly rated but, apparently, the notion of continental drift hadn't reached our curricula yet.
This was my one tiny qualm about this video. The narrator saying that Wegener "noticed" the coastlines fit together. Anyone with a functional neocortex can see that that African and South America "fit" or that Madagascar can "slot" into Mozambique. These were superficial observations that folks had been making since the dawn of cartography
In 1959 my geography teacher mentioned the theory of continental drift. He thought it was interesting, but said little about it. I didn’t buy it, because it seemed to me that the continents were fixed in place on a fairly solid Earth. But I found it very difficult to accept the isostatic theory of mountain formation we were taught. The idea of plates of rock sliding around on a less solid substrate gives a much more convincing explanation for mountains.
Hank, this should, I think, strike close to your heart: Semmelweis was also partially dismissed by his peers and colleagues because they were more interested in their station in life above their patients. The thinning was that commoners were dirty, and gentlemen (read: doctors) were inherently clean and purer. A doctor couldn't *possibly* be the carrier of disease to the unwashed masses. It was just impossible. They were gentlemen, and therefore clean. Just another example of class divide that's been going on forever.
so there was no possible way for a gentleman of this era to contract dysentery by drinking a full glass of the contagion, simply because of his social status and because he was considered upper class, educated and seemingly sophisticated as he enjoyed the finer things in life whereas the lower class were a self-perpetuating contagion of their own design and shunned accordingly
@@maryshaffer8474 Doctors get sick. Mine got Cancer and died. Doctors can not learn everything in Med School. They learn on the Job, especially about the mystery illnesses such as Epilepsy . They have 1500 different pills for it as not all pills react the same for all people with the ailment. For some NONE of the pills work, they found that edible marijuana works for some. The Doctors profession is a "Practice" as they are constantly experimenting on people.
I had read about Semmelweis a while back. Doctors were "Gentlemen" and their hands were inherently "clean." I can kinda see how this thinking might come about (beyond the simple I'm better than you). If you were poor, it was proabably more likely you would be exposed to sewage, dead bodies, rats, overcrowding, and other disease vectors than the rich "Gentleman" in his estate. So, seeing they had less disease their ego naturally assumed it was because of their station.
@@bunzeebear2973 I think they need theory and practice. While they might not be able to treat many patients with just what they learn in med school, they couldn't draw correct conclusion from their practice without having learned theory. Otherwise you would need no doctors, only nurses. And while standard therapies not work for all patients, they work for many and are often tried first.
it sounds odd, admittedly, but are people really different today, even with our knowledge of bacteria? how many people go to the bathroom in the mall restrooms and come out without washing their hands, only to buy food in the food court?
In the 15th Century, Japan has 20 million people in an area smaller than California which is practically equal or some what larger than Europe's population at that time. The reason? Japanese are constantly bathing on a regular basis and always wash themselves clean all the time and their doctors uses practically versatile herbal medicines and poultice that practically kills a lot of bacteria. Japan is also a land of volcanic hot sulphurous springs and fresh water springs which helps a lot in sanitizing themselves and their surroundings.
"Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down." - Adam Savage I'm sure this quote is in the comment section 1,000 times already, but it bears repeating 😆
Also. I was reminded of ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vPSTvYB-gxs.html (Specifically at the linked video's time 3:12 but I can't do time links on mobile) when he said something about people dying during amputations at 0:48.
That is simultaneously saddening and hilarious at the same time. I can just visualize Ignaz Semmelweis being dragged in a straitjacket by two mental ward doctors screaming: " YOU JUST HAVE TO WASH YOUR HANDS I'M TELLING YOU!!! "
Ignaz was sectioned because he refused to be quiet about what he had discovered. Other Professionals claimed he was repeatedly making a nuisance of himself - eventually because he wouldn't be quiet, they claimed he had gone mad, and had him placed in an Asylum. Within 2 weeks an orderly had beaten him so badly, he died from the injuries. The Covid hysteria reminds me of what happened to Ignaz.
Semmelweis didn't die of frustration. He died as a result of injuries suffered during a beating by the guards, which he suffered on admission. You ought to check out how he got into the institution, too.
Learned these lessons in junior high. I became mechanic, diagnostician (and fabricator, smith, tinkerer, etc). My diagnostic process is still based on the scientific method.
Honestly those who want to learn will seek information. But if thats not your passion you can give them the secrets of the universe and they would meh at it
Dr. Robert T Bakker is a fairly modern version of this story. He's the guy that turned the world of dinosaur paleontology on it's head by suggesting that dinos weren't cold blooded reptiles at all. How we see them today is far different than how we saw them 50 years ago. RIP Dr. Bakker, you were right!
“Sometimes thousands of years of evidence can support ideas, like the geometry of the earth” Anyone else think this was a subtle dig at flat-earthers? 😂
The third guy mentioned, didn't just die in a mental institution. He was falsely imprisoned there, by being tricked by a colleague. He was beaten severely by the guards and two weeks later died of an infection. He was put there by his colleagues as he was very vocal on how they were killing patients with their ignorance. As in the case today, questioning of a doctor is not allowed. Their arrogance won't allow it, they would rather have someone die.
"As in the case today, questioning of a doctor is not allowed." Oh, come on. You're implying that laymen are somehow qualified to question medical science. Dunning Kruger much? Also Semmelweis also a doctor and lived over a hundred and fifty years ago. The process of presenting your work through peer review is much different today.
@@parttimehuman The problem with peer review is that they are largely sponsored for favourable outcomes, there needs to be a system in place that reveals the sponsors of said studies that's easily recognised. Peer review is a very recent thing, in the age of thought police and ministries of truth, there is a lot of lost confidence in the academic world.
@@JustIn-mu3nl The academic world is in the process of destroying itself and everyone else's trust in it. History really does show that we as a species, indeed do not learn from history.
@@parttimehuman Nurses have many times observed things going wrong in hospitals and when they go to authorities to report it they are often dismissed because they are not doctors! It happens time and time again.
I am sad that my personal favorite did not make your list. Avogadro suspected that bats, somehow, 'saw with their ears' as they could fly around in dim light without bumping into things but could not avoid obstacles in good light after stopping up their ears with wax.
Bats eyes don't like bright light so work better at night. Although both bats and owls have good hearing as also sometimes travel in caves which are completely dark.
“...still being honored today...thank you...”. Your damn right thank you. I really respect the fact Hank thanks the thankless. I tip my hat to you Hank Green.
Quasicrystals. Dan Shechtman, the scientist who discovered them, was getting hostile reactions from other scientists who rejected his work. These included Nobel Laurate Linus Pauling who called Shechtman a "quasi-scientist". Only after other labs managed to recreate his work, and quasicrystals started being found in nature, was Dan Shechtman awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
@@duskthewolf3250 That makes no difference. Reality is not dependent on what we believe. All we can do is go with the evidence. And the overwhelming evidence is that there is no Heaven.
You know what is sad? The scientists whose works were never rediscovered up to today? Imagine the number of groundbreaking works that were shun and then became lost to humans
Guy : Why did the baby die? Doctor : I don't know, I was doing a autopsy on a rotting corpse and I went to help the baby delivery, the baby just unexpectedly died. Guy : *oh jeez I wonder why*
@@timdeathly Not you, the SciShow team. They have taken to this new trend in all of their videos, it is quite stupid and even worse for a science channel very confusing as we can see.
Great video. After Joseph Lister began identifying the cause of infections (and death) after surgery was unsanitary conditions, and made strides to ensure sterile operating rooms, a company developed a sanitary wash, naming it in his honor: Listerine. The Johnson & Johnson company, founded by three brothers, manufactured sterile gauze bandages, based on Lister's findings.
When Hank said "Mendel was best known for his experiments with pea plants" my video paused for about 2 seconds before "plants" and my eyebrows shot up so fast.
I love learning about plate tectonics, but it seems to me that one point is frequently overlooked: how much the science of plate tectonics owes to cartography. The idea that African and South American continents seem to fit together could not possibly have occurred to anyone until accurate maps were available.
And cartography on a global scale required knowing where you were, and whilst latitude is relatively easy, longitude took a Yorkshire carpenter a lifetime to solve, and involved him carrying his invention on his back on a 400 miles walk to London and back.
True, however this would still be a single, superficial observation and insufficient to support a claim a "extraordinary" as plate tectonics. The Wegener's ultimate triumph was demonstrating a multiplicity of evidence strains from different sciences and independent research. For example, finding seafloor fossils in the Himalayas, or tracking the scraping of the hard bedrock of the land left by glaciers.
@@davidfulton179 Absolutely you’re correct, but the science which we now call ‘plate tectonics’ derived from Alfred Wegener’s earlier ‘continental drift’ theory, didn’t it? I’m not an expert on Wegener, but he was not the first to notice that the coastlines of South America and Africa could fit together rather easily if they were puzzle pieces. Wegener was the first to publish the idea of continental drift, and I’m pretty sure he relied in large part on this geographical observation, an observation which in turn relied on availability of accurate maps. I never intended to imply that he did not also rely on other evidence, just that one of the most basic tenets of his theory derived from advancements in cartography.
More than cartography, contemporaneous stratigraphic sequences where more reliable to establish continuity. More than just physical demarcations, the stratigraphic sequences would have more evidence for ecological, petrological evidence to show same origin or location
Cool video. I recommend reading "Destiny of the Republic" by Candice Millard. The book covers the assassination of President James Garfield and discusses in great detail how the doctors at the time rejected Lister's ideas on antiseptic surgery and how their practices led to Garfield's death. She points out that if he were just a regular guy at that time he would have survived since the wound itself wasn't fatal and no one would have gone to the lengths they did (probing and prodding around the wound entrance) to try and save him. A very ironic and sad tale.
@@klausschwabshubris Gender is tho, even though every cool kid on the internet keeps denying it. It's a field that categorises groups according to sexual interest, identity and other attributes. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with biology but can. Like homosexuality which means male and sexually interested in males. Period. Nothing that denies biological properties or contradicts biological sex (that's why there's two words for that, sex and gender). Transgender therefore is a biologically male/female who's psychological identity doesn't match their "biological". Nothing that hurts anyone... Just a category... Therefore, it's part of social science and not biology... And come on, you don't really think that men are biologically designed to like the colour blue, do you? Yeah, that's what all this is about. Things we don't question, even though it's just a result of our surrounding. This can be a totally legit science, but people love to make it absurd (partly also from "within", there's no doubt about that) so they can hate on something, right? It's not that controversial as many would like it to be...
He was. However, it is widely believed that he doctored some of his results. They're just too perfect. Anyone who wants can go to Brno in the Czech Republic and see the foundations of his greenhouse where the famous experiments were done, and, the thing which was much more important to him, his incredible bee hive.
Mendel (or previous monks) must have spent years gathering data. Yes, it appears to be more than coincidence that each of his selected traits were on different chromosomes, but the data reduction and recognition of dominant/recessive gene pairs is genius.
Hey SciShow, I’ve been clinically addicted to your videos for the past couple of years and I just wanted to say thanks for letting me know not to chew on apple seeds. Also, I think it would be awesome if you made a video about some of the scientists in the tenth and eleventh centuries like Jabir bin Hayyan, Ibn al-Haytham, and Ibn Sina(or Avicenna). I think it would be really interesting to see how these scientists contributed to the fields of chemistry, biology, and medicine and what they got right(and wrong) at the time. I remember seeing some of these scientists individually in past videos but it would be awesome to have them all in one video in SciShow form.
just imagine what humanity would look like today if the Islamic golden age hadn't been subverted and ended by powerhungry holy men. Imagine having the technology of 500 years from now, today. (That's about the time between the fall of scientific naturalism in Islam and it's rise in Christian Europe).
@@Nerobyrne Yup, it's said that when the mongols attacked Baghdad the Tigris River flowed four days red from blood and four days black from ink. I can't imagine how life would be now if half those books were saved.
On a fun personal note, while I don't recall a lot from my early childhood, I do remember times when I was either really happy, or really irritated. One such moment relates to the fifth story in the video. When I was at Montessori School as my pre-school, from ages 3 through 5, the "toys" were all educational things, like flashcards, and puzzles of real things, like a map of the world. One such puzzle was the kind where the continents were wooden pieces with little knobs with which to pick them up and put them into place in a wooden sheet, where the oceans were the borders. I began putting the continents together on the floor, because, like many people, I could easily see that South America and Africa fit together fairly well. A teacher's aide asked whatbInwas doing, so I told her it looked like those should fit together. I asked whether they had once been together. She told me no, that this was impossible, as continents don't move; the appearance of congruence was just a coincidence. That was in 1971, so she had been in highschool in the early to mid 1960s. Apparently, Geography and the sciences underlying it, weren't a requirement back then, and she'd clearly never heard of Plate Tectonics. From time to time I'm reminded of this, and I have the slight urge to talk to her, to tell her, "See? I was right when I was three, and you were wrong. How does that make you feel now?" Of course, I don't know her name now, nor do I now live (Knoxville, TN) anywhere near where that school was (Bowie, MD), nor would I want to embarrass a now old woman. But still...
This is awesome. But not really her fault. From another commenter elsewhere in these comments, even in academic geogology departments plate tectonics didn't become accepted and was barely even whispered about until around 1970 or thereabouts.
I’ve recently been reading a little more on Semmelweis and from what I can tell, he did have a group of supporters in Vienna. The trouble was that he didn’t speak up for his own ideas until several years later and never corrected his supporters when they didn’t explain things as he understood them. When he finally did publish his theory the writing was terribly disjointed and was full of so many accusations that the medical community couldn’t accept it as a professional piece of literature.
Glad you mentioned Semmelweiss. My dad was a general practitioner and he told me about him. Although his ideas took time being implemented, every woman who survives childbirth and doesn't die of childbed fever (puerpual fever) owes him a debt of gratitude. Also, Wegener, though right, couldn't come up with the mechanism for continental drift. Once circulation in the mantle, trenches, and spreading ridges were discovered, plate tectonics confirmed Wegener ideas, except for continents plowing through oceanic crust.
It's not settled that the Earth rotates? Earth orbits the Sun? Oxygen and water are key life on Earth? Splitting an atom won't release it's energy? Sure, there's always some possibility of things changing in science, but most is as settled as that terms implies. I mean, you can settle a lawsuit, and you can settle in a given place...
@@homewall744 To be true science it has to be repeatable in multiple locations and at the moment we can only test them on Earth in orbit of Sol so unrepeatable at the moment in other locations. There are a number of things that until we are free of a stars gravity we can't fully test like nuclear decay rates change slightly depending on how far we are from the sun so that could change splitting an atom in other parts of space. As for lawsuits those focus on man made laws and can be different from what the law says depending on how the jury or judge feels about the case depending on a jury or bench trial.
Home Wall AGREED, but what burns me is that IGNORANT people will say “scientists are always changing their minds”. They just don’t understand that THE STRENGTH OF SCIENCE IS ITS ABILITY TO SAY “we are WRONG” and then continuing to search for the TRUTH. Religion has been WRONG from the beginning and is TERRIFIED TO ADMIT IT, so stuck in the Stone Age religion just LIES and LIES and LIES.
@@homewall744 "It's not settled that the Earth rotates? Earth orbits the Sun? Oxygen and water are key life on Earth?" These all may be settled for the purposes of conversation, but not for scientific purposes. According to Paul B. Weisz in the beginning pages of his textbook The Science of Biology 1967, after he explains the procedure of the scientific method, he has this to say under the subheading The Scientific Aim p. 10: "From the earlier discussion on the nature of the scientific method, it should be clear that science cannot deal with truth of the absolute variety. Something absolute is finished, known completely, once and for all. But science is never finished. Its method is unable to determine the absolute. Besides, once something is known absolutely, there is no further requirement for science, since nothing further needs to be found out (about that something)." There may be a large group of individuals with degrees in one science and/or the other, but not all of them engage in real science, which is within the limits of the scientific method, which can be encapsulated as: 1. Observation (e.g. of a problem, a phenomenon, the lack of a satisfaction to a need) 2. Problem posing (asking questions about how the observed thing operates) 3. Formulation of a hypothesis (judging what changes in the thing might produce an improvement or desired result concerning the thing) 4. Experimenting (applying the hypothesis through experiments involving changes to the thing and recording the observed results; one of the hallmarks of the scientific method is that experiments are able to be successfully repeated, especially by other scientists) 5. Formulation of a theory (statement of a possible or probable cause and effect relationship involving the thing, amenable to repeated testing) There are many who wish to be freed from the limitations of the scientific method and who move into studies of phenomena that do not lend themselves well to the scientific method, such as whether increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is detrimental to life on Earth. Who is prepared to increase or decrease the CO2 concentration and measure results? (Remember, the results must be repeatable to be scientific.)
To this day I can't explain how a biography of Semmelweiss which I read at about 11yo came to be among the maybe 20 books in my parent's single small bookshelf. They both left school at around 15, and had no interest in any academic subjects, let alone medicine. (They did see I was a bright lad, and two or three of those books were child's encyclopedia I can still visualise pages from. Thanks, Mum & Dad.)
Chemistry has been my passion since I was 12 & I actually got interested in the subject because of Mendel. I wanted to be a geneticist, but after learning about the building blocks of DNA, I realized that was actually the fascinating part. The components that allowed DNA to exist & interact with the body it had built & how different molecules meant a process could "say" something different & change its functions! The chemical information plus dynamic interactions based off of these systems of chemical "intelligence" just excites me in a limitless capacity. later, my 2nd formal Chemistry teacher didn't believe that I could "see" the molar mass equations (along with other reaction & expression setups) in my head until I was right every time & getting A's without writing my process down. The teacher seriously even threatened me by saying that if I didn't write down expressions or information *exactly* the same way as he did then he would fail me.
i wish i had the ability to see equations and reactions in my head, with a high accuracy. nice to see someone else who loves chemistry! I'm currently in university, and plan to major in chemistry
On the one hand, always show your work so that you can prove exactly how you got your answer right or wrong. (Aka how to get partial credit). On the other your teacher clearly doesn't understand that there are multiple paths to the correct answer, amd as long as your method doesn't have a known flaw (say it skips a step and 1% of the time this leads to an incorrect answer). And also that it is entirely possible to just know/intuit/visualize answers with enough practice. I accidentally memorized the first 20 elements in highschool chem (including atomic mass for the important ones) And now as an electrical engineer i tend to visualize magnetic fields and understand their shapes better than i can do those calculations (its the most painful vector calculus and should only be done by a computer).
The day I learned how electrons influenced chemical reactions, I felt like the whole universe opened up to my possible understanding and discovery. Chemistry is amazing
Your teacher was just trying to teach you to be detail oriented. Just because you can rush something through your head doesn't mean that's your best option, and it might not fit every career path. He may have just been trying to prepare you for a potential future job where you are required to write you're work out. He may have wanted the best for you in the long run. I know I hated writing my work out but I eventually saw the value in my teacher relentlessly punishing me for it.
This reminds me of Meg Murray in A Wrinkle in Time, whose math teachers would mark her down for using shortcuts that her physics professor parents had taught her, plus her having a great intuitive talent for math!
The first one gets me every single time I hear about him. Hearing "Coley's toxin" and "Coley's failure" took me back to high school. Is this the same experience people with common names have, or have you gotten used to it over the years?
@SciShow Finally, a channel where the videos use real pictures of the real people, and slides and clips that depict what is actually being discussed, instead of using ANY inane BS that the lazy editors feel will look as if it fits the bill when it truly does not. Luckily, you guys have good editors...and scriptwriters, researchers and, of course, diligent workers all around. Great job!
Excellent video! There are even books that mention the opposite phenomenon where a scientist promotes an idea and basically others have to wait until that scientist dies to continue the works. Here are two books I thoroughly enjoyed, and both are written in easy language (no formulas or anything): -A Brief History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, and -Absolute Zero, and the Conquest of Cold, by Tom Shachtman. I basically hated reading most of my life, but I couldn't put these down. Enjoy!
For most of the video I was hoping that y'all would namedrop John Snow, the father of modern pathology, but these five scientists were still worthy picks regardless! It's crazy to think about just how recent the theory of plate tectonics was really thoroughly formulated and accepted, considering how major its ramifications are to understanding the geologic and biologic history of our planet.
I would add Ludwig Boltzmann to this list. Statistical Mechanics is such a fundamental part of modern Physics, yet his work was met with great skepticism at the time
I’ve argued with sooo many people who don’t understand the scientific method and claim not to trust science due to the scientists “changing their mind” or “flip flopping” and how “they’re just theories and not facts” it’s irritating how many people fail to comprehend the scientific method and it’s wonders
Could add J Harlen Bretz and his theory of huge floods (1923) occurring in eastern Washington that were discounted by geologists until the 1960s because the source of water for them was unknown. They were the result of a failure of an ice dam (Cordilleran Ice Sheet) during the Pleistocene on the Clark Fork River in Montana that had created a huge lake. The flood channels can be seen in satellite images of the earth. They are now known as Missoula or Bretz Floods. Bretz lived to his 90s to see his theory vindicated
This episode just goes to show that science doesn’t always get it right at first, but because of the scientific method being rigorously followed, we will eventually get to the correct understanding, and be that much better for it.
Remember James Clerk Maxwell. In 1851 he realised that daylight is an EM wave. It would be 20 years before his EM waves were proven experimentally, by which time he had already explored the subject and privided the world with everything needed to understand EM theory. Imo, he is still waiting to be properly recognised as the greatest scientist ever.
Wrong! That's exactly how _science_ works. Those things he talked about were all considered not science or 'unscientific'. Until finally they were accepted by the science community. Now today they are considered sound science. Because they are in general considered true by scientists. If any of them were not considered generally accepted by scientists, then those would be classified as 'pseudo-scientific' (as Wikipedia calls certain things) or something like that.
Missing my point. *If* science worked by consensus, then new ideas would never, could never be accepted because they would violate the consensus opinion. Yet new ideas can be acceptable to refute and replace old ideas. That’s because science does not work by consensus.
I am not a scientist, but I do understand the frustration. When I was 6 years old I had an argument with my entire kindergarten class. I claimed that if you take a cup and hold it upside down while submerging it under water, the air will remain in the cup, as shown by the bubbles when you turn the cup over. Everyone agreed that I was stupid for believing that air could exist under water, and I wouldn't be surprised if they still believe so. If the scientists described in the video had as stupid people around them growing up as I had, perhaps they would have learned that you can never win an argument against a stupid person and they wouldn't have ended up in asylums themselves, and maybe they would have chosen a different career.
@@matheussanthiago9685 That depends on which time period you're looking at. If you're talking about the sixties or seventies onward, you're probably right, but before that the science was a bit murkier.
John Smith big money comes from pharmaceuticals nowadays, not homeopathic cures, organic foods, etc. Have you ever heard of a pharmaceutical sales representative? Drugs make doctors money, not organic foods lol. Like what were you even talking about?
Puerperal fever affected also pregnant women, who got infected during pelvic exams. Ignaz Semmelweis may have died from disease he was fighting against. There was a movie about it too.
For more on this, read Thomas Kuhn's book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" where he lays out his observation that when theory goes against data, the data is usually thrown out and the theory persists until it become massively obvious to all but the dumbest.
Kinda strange how basically everything we consider our modern scientific understanding of the world came about within the last 200 years, with most of which being less than 100 years old. It makes you wonder what new ways of looking at the world will feel so readily apparent in a lifetime from now that no one could imagine believing otherwise.
Although (like others) there were holes in their theories and methods, it seems that's not the only reason they were ignored. Several of these men were also disregarded not for scientific reasoning but, sadly, because of others' prejudice or even arrogance and pride. Many rejected Semmelweis's idea of hand washing because they found it a personal attack that they were the cause of infection... Also, it seems he was kinda a jerk about the whole thing. Mendel actually sent reprints of his works to many of the scientists of the day. But in the midst of the debate of Darwin's theory, a Catholic monk found it hard to find a friendly ear. Except for Swiss biologist Carl Nägeli, who in the end wanted to convince Mendel to drop his work ... only to publish his concept of inheritance; without one word of Mendel. On variation on a theme, we have Wegener. A German scientist who found himself in the middle of post WW1 politics among European and American geologists. In addition, since Wegener's father was a theologian, it seems he was also accused of only trying to come up with some hypothesis to explain the Great Flood. (Honorable mention here: Belgian Roman Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. who also happened to propose the controversial "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or what we now call the "Big Bang theory." )
The cure of cancer had a big impact on my life. It helped me understand what Freethinking is. (Hint: it is NOT atheism, nor is it "thinking anything you want") At U of I medical center, my father was a colleague of Dr. Andrew Ivy, who had developed a cure for cancer that he called Krebiozen. Dr. Ivy was not a bad sort, but he was guilty of a common trap scientists can fall into: he wanted Krebiozen to work SO BADLY that he lost his objectivity about it. Krebiozen did NOT cure cancer. I remember my father telling me that he always "listened to the quacks," when I asked why he chose to listen to Ivy's speeches. Ivy was called a quack, and it turned out he was one, but not intentionally. Why listen to the quacks? I asked my father. He let me know that it has often been the case that a scientist is called a quack, and is later proved right - often long after they died. Which is exactly what this video is explaining. My father wanted all the input about Krebiozen, so he could make up is own mind about it. It sounds natural, but really very few people actually apply that principle. In fact, people usually teach their children WHAT to think, and it's called normal, although it means many parents will pass on destructive attitudes, like hate, to their kids. Should THAT be normal, too? I learned that Freethinking is a DISCIPLINE, a very personal and private self-discipline. Which is VERY hard to do, and is often painful - but it is WORTH it. Because Freethinking's discipline helps you arrive as closely as humanly possible, to learning what REALITY is. Not what reality "ought to be." REALITY rules all events. Sometimes you have to muster all your courage to acknowledge a particularly terrifying or supremely UGLY reality. But if you don't, that genuine reality still rules, and can easily catch you unawares. Where ugly and terrifying realities are concerned most people dive into denial, and leap to accept a "reality" that isn't as terrible. I learned how extremely dangerous it is to deny those realities. So my father gave me a gift beyond price. He taught me HOW to think. For which I'll love him forever. He cared more that I had done my homework on an issue than whether my conclusion agreed with his or not. How many parents can be that unselfish?
Huge fan of Semmelweiss! I’ve heard of him before but I couldn’t remember his name. He was so inspired! And I can totally understand his frustration. 😑
You guys need to include a scientist, who won a Nobel prize in the 1930's for his metabolic theory of Cancer. There is mounting evidence that Cancer is a disease of the Mitochondria- not the Nucleus. The Mitochondria has genes too, which may make it vulnerable to viruses as well.
Everett and multi-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a gut punching example. Met with Bohr who told him he was an idiot. Never worked on it again. His final request was for his cremains to be thrown out in the kitchen garbage. Now a leading interpretation and known to every sci-fi fan.
That's the true & continuing story of science. The 'wackos' question the egos "science" of their day, and get rejected and persecuted. Then if the new invention gets accepted eventually, the egos [authorities] get on board pretending they were with it all along and try to hide the fact that they were the ones who opposed and tried to prevent it, all the while opposing and 'debunking' the newest "wacko". The pattern is so nauseatingly repetitious, yet somehow plays out every generation anyway. The modern 'scientists' play out the same pattern with their skepticism, while chuckling at the "ignorant superstitious & closed minded" scientific authorities of the past, claiming "but NOW we know the truth" and calling the 'wacko' of the past a genius, as if they would have been on the side of 'wacko' had they lived then. Yet they respond to the current 'wackos' in the same way, because NOW they're cock-sure that they know everything. They love to contrast themselves with past ignorance by saying ""but NOW we know this, and NOW we know that. Yes, back then, they didn't understand blah blah, but NOW we know....." and claim absolute knowledge about everything, as if 100 years from now they will not be seen the same way as they see past ignorant arrogance, even though they have this historic pattern of being routinely proven wrong plainly set out in front of them to study, and learn that humility is the real lesson of science - the lesson that repeats over & over & over.
Oh, yes; even well-known geophysicists like Charles Richter (of Richter scale fame) discounted continental drift as an option until the 1960s. A classic example of how scientists can be very closed minded, even when evidence for a “discounted” theory piles up.
My favourite anekdote about 4 is that Mendel and Darwin were actually competitors, thinking that the others work would invalidate their own work that they believed to be true. I a funny twist they turned out to both be largely right.
Constantine Samuel Raffinesque: In the early 1800s, he was criticized for declaring too many small variations as distinct species -- his response was basically "how do you think species come about?" He also argued that Native Americans came from Asia and had built the earthworks then being discovered. Also, based on his naked-eye observations and drawings others had made from telescopes, he postulated that the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy and the Sun is about 3/4ths the way out one of the spiral arms.
I've been a professional scientist for 50 years and I can't praise this enough. Science makes progress in fits and starts, and very often, some of the most important ideas and discoveries are extremely murky or even controversial at the outset. I think many who denigrate scientific findings don't realize how such controversies actually validate the scientific method. Science produces contradictory data and alternative explanations almost by definition, but persistent good experimental practice has ultimately won out, and the real truth has emerged over and over. Before people start politicizing science, it might be good to talk about how science actually works, and to keep in mind the vast benefits it has led to in all of our lives today.
It's always interesting to learn about indirect advancements in science. Can't remember his name but the guy who discovered fertilizer lived prior to our knowledge of photosynthesis and assumed plants had to get all their material from the ground. He was wrong and failed because the change in soil mass was so much smaller than that which the plants gained, but by finding out what the plants removed from the soil and adding more of it back into the same soil enabled the plants to grow bigger and better. Even though his science/theory/explanation was wrong his discovery effectively saved the 18th century from starvation by causing greatly increased crop yields.
@@marybrumley3886 I mean ,yes it's difficult for them to follow spoken words. And the next phrase was sarcasm because the guy moved his hands too much.
@@kenkozma3780 Okay, now I understand. So many folk seem to have to move their hands a lot when they talk, that I don't really pay enough attention to remember that they do that. Because of my hearing problems, I focus on their words. Thanks for posting.
Judah Folkman was the first to hypothesize that tumours could make the body grow new veins and arteries to supply it with the blood needed to grow. He coined the term angiogenesis and at the time was laughed out of the scientific room for the idea the body could grow new vessels after birth. He proved it by growing a tumour on the cornea of a rabbit. Slowly, new veins began to appear on the clear aqueous eye toward the tumour which began to grow once it had its own blood supply
@LapTopGladiator Unfortunately that's just factually incorrect. Gender discrimination has always been rife in science; things are a bit better now than they used to be, but they're far from perfect.
@@Kalevala87 Discrimination of all kinds has always been rampant in human societies. It's not like women were/are the "main victims" (like some people would like to believe), truth is that all sorts of collectives have been discriminated against in human history (and still are...even by women). Anyway, it's funny how feminists tend to sweep stuff like this under the rug: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-faI8kacPGbQ.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MkqLs6ZX_TQ.html etc...
Would be fun (though a little depressing) to do an "inverse" show: ideas that SEEMED reasonable but turned out to be wrong. That essay from E.A. Poe on the impossibility of a chess playing machine and that old idea of the "divergence of charge flow (of the ether) within an atom" spring to mind as possibilities....
Sister Elizabeth Kenney, Australian self-taught nurse who discovered that massage, warm baths, and exercise dramatically reduced the crippling effect of polio. Doctors laughed and scoffed. The conventional treatment was immobility of the body. I knew a lady who got Sister Kenney's treatments and 40 years on, just had a slight limp. People who got the conventional treatment were cripples. Two foreigners have been awarded un-restricted, no visa required to enter the US,the Marquis de Lafayette and Sister Elizabeth Kenney.
@@deborahyork4338 You had me until mentioning Pavlov, while his research was impressive he supposedly surgically implanted bells into dogs' ears. Tesla made several great discoveries (mostly in electrical and engineering fields) but it's likely that his study of electrical current affecting mood and digestion were overlooked until recently