SciShow : 5 Scientists with Ideas That Nobody Believed ... Who Were Right

  • A nice video describing famous scientists who were right, but not believed.




    I like it because they explain some rational reason, like unserious clinical practices raised founded skepticism.

    This recognition that being wrong was rational is seen also in Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolution"

    http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html


    Human factor is key to understand erroneous skepticism, and respect of both your own scientific rigor and other's skepticism is important on the side who is anyway right but denied.


    Not talking of the mass of erroneous ideas pushed by people who were right on one key point.

  • Its seems we need overwhelming proof ,not just an apple but get hit by the tree to know its helpful

    It's a shame everything is based on profit

    I would still like to know if this gizzmo was anything.

  • http://sustainable-nano.com/20…pe-and-why-it-cant-exist/



    As you can see, Royal Rife was a remarkable technician, who worked for Zeiss Microscopes for many years, building what he called 'Universal microscopes' that he claimed could see things no other optical microscope could. But his claims have got little support elsewhere. Strangely enough, I can see some overlap between his claims, and some of the more recent work of Piantelli.

  • http://sustainable-nano.com/20…pe-and-why-it-cant-exist/



    As you can see, Royal Rife was a remarkable technician, who worked for Zeiss Microscopes for many years, building what he called 'Universal microscopes' that he claimed could see things no other optical microscope could. But his claims have got little support elsewhere. Strangely enough, I can see some overlap between his claims, and some of the more recent work of Piantelli.


    I have very little time for guys making weird claims (like Rife) without good evidence. They are usually (as Rife) misrepresenting evidence. The trouble is that the press (and people in general) like "I've discovered something new" stories and disentangling what is real and what is not can be difficult.


    For example in this case the claims to see viruses optically are on the edge of theoretically (though not practically) possible. You can see sub-wavelength objects: they have some affect on the waves, just this is very difficult and would not lead to sharp edges. And with complex optics I'm sure separating artifactual specks from real objects must be challenging.


    For this reason I don't blame Rife. We should blame those who do not have a skeptical attitude towards the claims. If we find it so difficult to sort out reality from fiction we can understand that an inventor, secure in their own strengths (in this case Rife was a brilliant technician), can make the same mistakes. Once this turns into a public claim, with all the limelight and humiliation if it turns out wrong, things get difficult.


    Although he is an interesting figure in history, Royal Rife is an incredibly difficult person to obtain accurate information on. This is because he also claimed to have invented a cure for cancer (he didn’t) and his “medical work” underwent a pseudoscientific revival in the 1980s. In this blog post, we cover only his microscopy inventions (or lack thereof). Accurate information on his medical research is scarce and difficult to find amongst all the sales pitches for his so-called cure

  • I entirely agree. Zeiss should have known better, since they were well aware of the resolution limits established long before. But they had such a superb reputation that Rife microscopes sold because of the brand name.


    The other work Rife did btw, which was about healing using EM frequencies is also something Piantelli is interested in - I am sure he never swallowed the microscopy stuff/