Five great scientists with flawed vision


The blunders committed by the five geniuses profiled in this book should make us lesser beings feel better about ourselves. Mario Livio, an astrophysicist who writes popular science with Asimovian accessibility, doesn’t want to bring these men down. He couldn’t if he tried. They are gods to the godless, quasi-worshipped by the Sheldon Coopers of the world for their phenomenal contributions to their respective fields. But knowledge, Livio reminds us, transcends any one individual. It is relentless; in time it overcomes all obstacles, including the shortcomings of the very people dedicated to its advancement.

Brilliant Blunders opens with Charles Darwin, the bane of anti-intellectual fundamentalists. Fittingly, he lies near Isaac Newton at Westminster. Like Newton, he altered the way we see nature. Before he arrived, immutability was the watchword of biologists. Species did not evolve, they were ever thus, designed by a benevolent deity. Darwin showed conclusively that we are a work in progress millions of years in the making. But his initial explanation for heredity was off. Fortunately, Gregor Mendel’s experiments with garden peas provided the missing piece in the evolutionary puzzle before opponents could exploit Darwin’s mistake and undermine his new theory.

Other groundbreakers were not spared embarrassment. Lord Kelvin, also buried near Newton, was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 19th century. But this stubborn Victorian insisted that the Earth was only 100 million years old despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The astronomer Fred Hoyle likewise suffered from cognitive dissonance with regard to the Big Bang, a term he coined on a 1949 BBC radio program. The universe is in a steady state, he declared, and therefore cannot be expanding. Interestingly, Kelvin and Hoyle were critical of Darwin; each in his own way objected to the idea of unstoppable change.

This was not Linus Pauling’s problem. In the early 1950s, he was poised to crack the genetic code. James Watson and Francis Crick were afraid Pauling, already a living legend, would beat them. But when he unveiled his triple-helix model, they could not believe their eyes: the foremost chemist on the planet had gotten the basic chemistry wrong! DNA is in the shape of a double helix, of course. What happened? Livio suggests that Pauling’s political activities, such as his anti-nuclear activism, may have distracted him.

We conclude with Einstein, whose cosmological constant, an offshoot of the theory of relativity, was another stab at limiting our understanding of the universe. Einstein didn’t have to wait to be disproven, however; he did it himself, the mark of a secure ego. Politicians and scientists should heed his words: “Conviction is a good motive, but a bad judge!”

Ariel Gonzalez teaches English at Miami Dade College.

Read more Books stories from the Miami Herald

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category