Nine Crazy Ideas in Science

doom writes "The general concept of Robert Ehrlich's book is absolutely superb: Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True. Here, someone with a technical background (Ehrlich is a physics prof at George Mason) and an open mind investigates in detail a number of 'crazy' ideas, to see if there's anything to them. The execution of the idea is not quite as superb, but Robert Ehrlich has done better at this difficult job than anyone else I know of. This book is highly recommend as a good review of the evidence on some scientific controversies." Read on for doom's review, in which he goes through Erlich's nine-part list, but mind the spoilers. Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True author Robert Ehrlich pages 244 publisher Princeton University Press rating Great idea, very good execution reviewer doom ISBN 0691070016 summary A scientist evaluates some "crazy ideas"

Here's the deck of nine ideas under consideration:

• More Guns Mean Less Crime
• AIDS is Not Caused by HIV
• Sun Exposure is Beneficial
• Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are Beneficial
• The Solar System Has Two Suns
• Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic Origins
• Time Travel is Possible
• Faster-than-Light Particles Exist
• There Was No Big Bang

The game here is that Ehrlich is not telling you in advance what his conclusions were. He says he's tried to keep an open mind, and claims that during his investigations he actually changed his mind about some things (though he never says about what exactly).

So in this review I'm going to give you generalities first, and bury "the butler did it" type information after a SPOILER warning.

One of the problems with the execution of this work is that you can pretty often tell when Ehrlich is enthusiastic about an idea just from his general tone as he writes about it... and conversely, in retrospect I think I should've been able to spot when he disagreed with, because the writing in those chapters was a little confusing.

Part of his schtick is that at the end of each chapter he rates the idea on a scale of 0 to 4 "cuckoos". Oddly enough I often find that I strongly disagree with his cuckoo ratings even just based on the evidence that he presents. But the absolute magnitude of my disagreements are typically no more than a single "cuckoo".

I was worried about some of his evaluation criteria (see the introduction available on-line as a sample chapter), because he includes several points that strike me as fairly dicey: "Who proposed the idea?"; "How attached is the proposer to the idea?" and "Does the proposer have an agenda?" These all relate to judging the person rather than the idea itself. (Consider that "consider the source" and "ad hominem argument" are pretty much the same as far as logic goes.) But he does clearly understand that these are just rules of thumb, and I note with some amusement that he doesn't resort to these particular rules anywhere in the later chapters. He's more interested in the logic of the arguments, which is as it should be.

I could bring up lots of quibbles (and I probably will after the spoiler warning), but overall I found this to be a great breezy read. I learned quite a bit from it. While nothing here made me do a reversal of my beliefs, I was often surprised that the evidence for something was stronger or weaker than I'd supposed.

Here we have an educated, astute, person doing a relatively independent review of some controversial, interesting technical subjects. Why aren't there more books like this?

Ah, but at least there's one more! I see that a sequel has just come out: Eight Preposterous Propositions: From the Genetics of Homosexuality to the Benefits of Global Warming . I bet I'll be submitting a review on that one shortly ...

Anyway, now into the nitty gritty. Here's your SPOILER WARNING. Skip the following if you want to play the "guess where he's going" game with this book. Let's take it chapter by chapter:

More Guns Mean Less Crime

I'm a "right to bear arms" kind of guy myself, and I was surprised that the data doesn't seem to support private ownership of guns as a crime deterrent. Ehrlich argues persuasively that the statistical evidence for this is very weak. I appreciate the fact that Ehrlich concludes that both the pro and anti gun sides are nuts: he rates them 3 and 2 "cuckoos" respectively, where a 3 is "almost certainly not true" and 2 is "very likely not true."

But here, we come to my first strong disagreement with him. If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself.

AIDS is Not Caused by HIV

I've had the impression that the the Duesberg hypothesis was pretty screwy, but I was willing to tentatively consider it might have something of value. For example, what about the possibility that multiple diseases are now being diagnosed incorrectly as one single syndrome "HIV"?

But Ehrlich's analysis satisfies me that there's not much of scientific value in Duesberg's ideas at all. I don't argue with his 3 cuckoo rating (but I wouldn't blame you if you thought it deserved the full 4).

Sun Exposure is Beneficial

Ehrlich concludes that this looks fairly plausible, and gives it a 0 cuckoo rating, pretty much as I would have expected. Many people might find this surprising though, certainly the popular impression these days seems to be that sunlight is deadly.

Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are Beneficial

Here, Ehrlich lays out the case for "radiation hormesis", and I really don't think this is that fantastic a notion (the difference between a poison and a medicine is often a matter of dosage, why wouldn't this be true of radiation?). But radiation is so demonized in the popular imagination that "radiation is good for you" comes off an insane joke. Ehrlich takes it seriously, and essentially concludes that while there are reasons for suspecting that this effect exists, it hasn't been entirely established. And here we have one of my quibbles: he awards it 1 cuckoo, which translates to "probably not true, but who knows". But there is no reason for saying it's probably not true. If something is not crazy, just not established, I would be inclined to award it "0 cuckoos," aka "Why not?"

The Solar System Has Two Suns

This is the "Nemesis" hypothesis, which it will probably come as no surprise is rated at 2 cuckoos. The short version of the story: originally they looked at part of the extinction record, and it looked like there was a definite cycle. But if you look at the whole record it doesn't seem to be there.

Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic Origins

This is subject that's been of some interest to me, ever since I heard Thomas Gold give a talk on this idea about a decade ago. It turns out that this is now looking much less like "an intriguing possibility" and much more like a truth awaiting a few funerals before it will be declared established. The odds are good that "fossil fuels" don't actually come from fossils, rather they're from hydrocarbons that pre-existed the formation of the earth, which means we're probably not going to run out of them. (So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)

Ehrlich rates this at 0 cuckoos, but maybe he should have invented a "-1 cuckoo" for this one.

Time Travel is Possible

2 cuckoos: no surprises.

Faster-than-Light Particles Exist

Ehrlich mentions in his introduction in the interests of "full disclosure" that he's actually strongly attached to one of the ideas discussed here (the existence of tachyons), but by the time I'd gotten to that chapter I'd entirely forgotten about this, and I was disappointed to realize that he was being an advocate, not an independent reviewer (it includes a picture of him wearing a "no tardy-centrism" T-shirt).

Ehrlich rates this at 0 cuckoos, but come on. Even just based on the write-up he presents, it's a clear 1 cuckoo.

There Was No Big Bang

Clocks in at 3 cuckoos, as you might expect.

You can purchase Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Coal?

[One Louder]

I'm not a geologist, but I was under the impression that fossils are regularly found in coal, and that we've observed the intermediate steps of its formation from peat bogs.

Re:Coal?

[Creedo]

Actually, there is an argument now that coal and oil are formed in totally different ways. Coal is real fossil fuel, and oil is generated by underground bacteria. A biologist friend of mine was telling me this. I think it has to do with Gould's abiogenic theory, but I am not certain.

Re:Of course

[drooling-dog]

When it was first thought of, the theory of relativity was just a 'crazy idea'.

No, I don't think it ever was considered a "crazy idea" at all, at least not by anyone who understood it. It was a hit right out of the chute.

Re:more reviews of this book

[gantzm]

(P.s Yes, guns do cause more crime. The rest of the world learnt to read a bar chart years ago.. do they teach them in your schools yet?)
Hmmm. In Chicago, New York, Washington DC and others guns are all but illegal and they have very heavy crime problems. But, in places like Vermont and many other places that allow folks to walk around with loaded firearms crime is down. Washington DC and New York really are the biggest counter points to your statement though. Of course this is Karma suicide as a lot of anti-gun nuts reside on /.

Gun Ownership vs Right to Carry

[dlakelan]

The data on gun ownership alone is not particularly correlated with crime deterrent, but that's conveniently ignoring the data on concealed carry licenses published by John Lott, not-coincidentally in a book called "More Guns Less Crime"

His data showed a consistent and predictable decline in violent crime after the passage of concealed carry laws. Furthermore his data shows that violent crime was exchanged for crimes where there was less risk of meeting a person during commision (car theft, etc). Both of these are consistent with basic economic hypotheses (ie. greater risk costs means less people participate)

Of course when it comes to criminals evaluating their risks, it doesn't matter how many people have guns locked in cabinets at home, it matters how many people MIGHT have them hidden under their jacket.

John Lott: More Guns Less Crime
Kleck and Kates: Armed, new perspectives on gun control.

are the two most important available books that use logic and statistics to examine how firearms affect crime.

No Four Cuckoos in Book?

[DumbSwede]

No Four Cuckoos on a Four Cuckoos scale?

Surely he could have found one or two to fit the high end of the scale.

How about crop circles by electromagnetic fields?

Trust me, you can't reason with the pro crop circle camp, I've debated with them over at Space.com

Some other over looked -- way out ideas.

No Anti-Gravity Speculation?

The Anti-Gravity by Spinning Super-Conductor: Seems to be clocking in at 3 cuckoos by my estimate

However

Gravity Wave Detection and coupling to Electromagnetic Fields: a 1 cuckoo currently, but could go higher or lower in the
near future with new experiments.

Multiple Universes: I'd give this a zero, but experimental confirmation is going to be a real bitch.

Dark Mater: a zero cuckoo for sure, but we haven't really seen the damn stuff yet.

Brane Collision origin of the universe: 1 to 2 cuckoos, but could gain respectability. Less violent than Big Bang, less
inflation, but still an abrupt origin in the 10-20 Billion Year range.

String Theory: a zero cuckoo. It's hard to bet against a theory that just keeps changing, refining, and redefining itself.
In the end String Theory will probably be the GUT, but by then will probably have no strings :-)

Underlining process to Universe are computational: Main premis to Stephen Wolfram's "New Kind of Science." I like Stephen, and even use to work for him, but he has a long way to go before being able to claim a truly "New Kind of Science." I'd say 1 cuckoo.

Cold Fusion: I'd give it 2 cuckoos (these guys just won't go away)

Homeopathic Medicine: I'd give this one a 5 on the 4 cuckoo scale.

MOND Modified Newtonian Dynamics: 1 cuckoo probably, but could really upset the apple cart in physics. Has even had write ups in Scientific American
see
Where's the Dark Matter?

These are just a few off the top of my head, I look forward to seeing some other Slashdotters lists.

Re:more reviews of this book

[Scrameustache]

Of course this is Karma suicide as a lot of anti-gun nuts reside on /.

Even though you call me a nut, I'll explain the position:

There are a lot of irresponsible idiots out there.
If guns are freely available, there will be a lot of irresponsible idiots out there with guns.

I therefore think that guns should be regulated in much the same way that we don't allow any idiot to drive around with an 18 wheeler.

There are also a lot of pro-gun nuts on /.
AFAICT, their opinion is: "I want a gun. I hate and fear all authorities, especially if they are called 'government'. I oppose any steps by said government to either make it harder for me to have a gun or to keep track of who has guns."

I strongly disagree with that position because it gets in the way of stopping irresponsible idiots from getting their clumsy hands on devices designed to make holes in people.

Of course, that makes me an "anti gun nut", because when you don't have rational arguments, name calling is the only substitute.
Damn liberal media...

HIV=AIDS?

[Docrates]

For a good read on an advocate of HIV != AIDS, go here.

She has HIV, does not take any of the AZT drugs and is and has been healthy as a horse for a looong time.

Re:Of course

[azaris]

Actually, mathematics has been proven to be true. One of the classical masters (I believe either Plato or Aristotle) laid the work for it; Basically he took basic set theory

He did? This is interesting since formal set theory wasn't formulated until the mid-nineteenth century. Aristotle did come up with the axiomatic system of deriving all possible truths from a basic set of simple truths, but that's hardly set theory as such.

which is not mathematics but a logical framework that is provably true, and used it to prove that all mathematical operations of the time is also provably true.

Except of course the ones Euclid couldn't prove to be true so he assumed them to be axioms - some of which were later derived from the other axioms.

Certain modern mathematical concepts, most notably i (the square root of negative 1) were not included in this treatise, however.

Imaginary numbers were encountered by mathematicians in the sixteenth century and established as a concept by the early eighteenth century - hardly a modern concept. By comparison set theory, linear algebra and statistical probability theories didn't emerge until late nineteenth/early twentieth century!

Re:Irresponsible Idiots

[Scrameustache]

I clearly said:

I therefore think that guns should be regulated in much the same way that we don't allow any idiot to drive around with an 18 wheeler.

And you reply: "Good argument!! There are lots of irresponsible idiots so don't let anyone have guns."

So, you have never seen an 18 wheeler in your life, have you?

Who, the HELL, is modding that crap up? Seriously, what is wrong with you. I say "restrict", I get trolled with semi-litterate idiots who say that I said "ban".

Is this bizarro slashdot or something?

Why is it not possible to have a fucking rational discussion about guns when people from the U.S. are around? Its not that hard people: read what the other person actually wrote, not what you are expecting to read!

On to the rest:

So it's OK to let irresponsible idiots drive 3000 pound cars.

No, its not.

And it's OK to let irresponsible idiots buy chainsaws.

Please, PLEASE look up murder statistics. Compare numbers of homicide with firearms to homicide with chainsaws.
Please.