
The Grandfather of Alt-Science - pmcpinto
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/
======
unchocked
I've crossed paths with the man, and attended a "Doctors for Disaster
Preparedness" conference that he ran. He's undeniably brilliant, but that
whole scene is filled with people whose primary emotional motivation is a
sense of grievance that the scientific community does not share their personal
theories.

Every talk at that conference was framed as a brilliant insight that was being
suppressed by the scientific community. Highlights, by my recollection,
include that climate change is false, radiation is good for you, and most
alarmingly in my opinion that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Not surprised at all that Dr. Robinson has since got tied up in vaccine
denial, and been extensively funded by the Mercers et al. Nor that he has
since become a perennially losing congressional candidate in Oregon.

There's a great quote at the end of this article, in which he says that
science is fundamentally a populist endeavor, and that one man can be right
and all others wrong. I'd point out that science is also fundamentally a human
endeavor, and that those who practice it cannot escape their own motivations
or cognitive traps.

Perhaps Dr. Robinson and his crowd really are onto something the scientific
consensus is blind to. But they're also creationists, climate deniers, and
anti-vaxers. We know what cognitive biases drive people to those opinions, and
we judge their research output accordingly.

~~~
philipkglass
I've known a couple of people who were anti-Einstein, anti-relativity cranks.
They were also (respectively) a skilled research chemist and a skilled
electrical engineer. Both had doctorates from mainstream institutions. They
were fine to consult on topics related to their expertise, as long as it
didn't touch on their mission against Einstein. Trained scientists can
compartmentalize information and fool themselves too. (As the article notes,
of course; Robinson once worked at UCSD alongside Linus Pauling. Pauling had
some bad ideas too.)

As a general heuristic, "discount all of a person's scientific ideas once
you've seen them championing one howler" is fine. But if you think that your
bullshit meter is calibrated well enough to tease signal from noise, there
_are_ autodidacts and non-institutional researchers who have good ideas or
insights alongside their offputting HIV/AIDS denialism, Young Earth
Creationism, Electric Universe-ism, or what-have-you.

~~~
unchocked
Agreed. And Art's work on biomarker detection is conceptually valid, though
subject to practical challenges similar to those vexing Theranos.

But Art's past association with Pauling, combined with his charisma and rugged
good looks are systematically used to provide top cover for a grievance-
oriented movement of cranks.

It's exactly the veneer of respectability that Bob Mercer needs to put these
guys in political power. The urinalysis is a red herring.

------
humanrebar
This article portrays "alt-science" as a right-wing phenomenon, but there are
certainly left-wing flavors as well, including:

\- anti-nuclear sentiment (1, 2)

\- anti-wind sentiment (bad for birds) (1)

\- blanket anti-GMO (2), overly focused on organic products

\- homeopathy (2)

\- overconfidence in some forms of birth control: condoms as actually used are
only 85% effective (3) birth control per year per couple

\- poor understanding, or at least wording, around prenatal development.
Developed human fetuses are both human and alive. Scientifically, the abortion
question isn't whether a human life is ended, it's clear that one is. The
question is a philosophical (not scientific) -- whether the termination of a
life is justified and who gets to determine that.

I expect that some of these sentiments _could_ be very true. Just like storing
up thousands of samples of urine could provide scientific advancement. But the
discussion on each issue is _not_ scientific. In some cases, scientific
inquiry itself can be seen as dangerous and harmful.

(1) [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-
war-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-
science/)

(2) [https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-
scien...](https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-
really)

(3) [https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-
control/condom...](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-
control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms)

~~~
elefanten
I agree it's good to point that out and add your examples to the discussion.
But the article struck me as fair:

-It's first and foremost a profile piece of a man who is definitively right-wing and has major ties to right-wing donors and interests.

-It had a wary narrative on Pauling as well, who is clearly indicated as left-wing.

-It offers warnings about alt-science in general in the closing paragraphs.

------
sushisource
Nicely written piece. Lovely to read something that has a nicely balanced
approach without overtones of distain or bias.

People are complicated - clearly being a climate change denier seems like a
pretty insane thing for an otherwise seemingly intelligent scientist to
believe, but as the article mentions towards the end: Who knows, maybe the
urine thing will be useful. There's no reason to dismiss it out of hand. I
think using more nuclear power would be a good idea.

So much of today's rhetoric seems to want to paint people in black and white,
but everyone's a mix. Even Trump has the occasional flash of not-complete-
idiocy (although, to be fair, I'm having a hard time thinking of one).

~~~
davidkuhta
I appreciated the humanity of it. In particularly, Robinson reflecting on his
past decisions:

> "I don’t know where she [Robinson's wife] got that disease, but my guess is
> that if we’d stayed in La Jolla, she’d still be alive. It would have been a
> different life. So I look at all this, and I know I’m lucky — I’ve got six
> wonderful young people working here, and they’re all brighter than me so I’m
> having fun. But she’s dead and the [urine] profiling was delayed for many,
> many years. So if I could do it over again …" He paused.

------
Chardok
I've always been attracted to the idea of science and medicine becoming more
"open source", in the sense that all knowledge could be free flowing and
lowering the entry to understanding and contributing to it. It could be a
great way for the "alt-science" and official academia to benefit each other.

However, I am pretty skeptical on Robertson's approach to this, on several
parts, but the most conspicuous is how his "alt-science" seems to be aligning
a lot with modern GOP philosophies.

For example, while he explains plainly, "that human activity has not harmfully
warmed the Earth", the article he participates in comes to a bit different
conclusion, which is "Meaningful integrated assessments of the environmental
impacts of anthropogenic CO 2are not yet possible because model estimates of
global and regional climate changes on interannual, decadal and centennial
time scales remain highly uncertain", which seems a bit dishonest to say the
least.

Great article and fascinating read. Academia surely needs to be challenged,
but I am afraid I would take more of Pauling's approach myself.

------
Simulacra
“Science is entirely a populist thing,” Robinson says again. “It’s a way of
using the individual human mind. That means one man can be right, and
everybody else can be wrong."

What an interesting quote. I've never considered science in this light but...
it's true!

~~~
tacomonstrous
I'm surprised by this reaction. To me, the quote sounds like gobbledygook.
Populism and the power of the individual mind are almost at cross-purposes.

~~~
roenxi
People have very limited amount of time to learn new things; and the scope of
human knowledge is vast beyond any individual's ability to test even a
meaningful subset of it empirically.

Because of this, science is disseminated in the same way as religion,
political action, superstition and gossip - an authority figure says
something, and we take it as true. No differences. Same mechanism for all
knowledge, correct or spurious.

Society has special mechanisms for science to be tested against reality every
so often (especially through the PHD system of selecting authority figures).
Knowledge from a 'scientific' authority is more likely to be based on
objective fact than anything else. However, there is still massive scope for
error, especially in what the public believes if something is mis-identified
as a scientific fact.

I'm thinking things like dietary science. The public perception on what the
science says seems to be somewhat malleable.

~~~
heurist
We have to blindly accept scientific findings sometimes because we don't have
the capacity to know everything, but in general "blind acceptance" is a loose
connection that we acknowledge could and probably change. The fact that people
don't understand that or hold too firm of a grasp on any particular finding is
a failure of scientific education.

------
DonbunEf7
I'm an Oregonian. Art Robinson is well-known locally as either a wingnut or a
genius scientist, depending mostly on whether you've actually scrutinized his
words. His research might well be scientifically meaningful, but a lot of
things he's advocated for are pseudoscience, and he doesn't come across well
in discussions when he's cross-examined on his prior publications.

As far as politics goes, he did not pick a great district to try to run for.
The incumbent, Peter DeFazio (D), is beloved in the area for his populist
attitude and progressive voting record; the
Eugene/Springfield/Corvallis/Albany metro population consists largely of aging
hippies and college students, and he's been consistently elected since the
1980s.

------
scandox
> ensorcelled

verb literary past tense: ensorcelled; past participle: ensorcelled

enchant; fascinate.

Worth the price of admission for that alone

------
wizardforhire
Uggggghhhh, it's all fun and games to read about these wackos until you have
to experience them in real life. Until you witness the deaths their bullheaded
stupidity cause first hand it's humane to be apologetic to their plight. We're
all ignorant, only the stupid defend their ignorance. This is what makes them
dangerous. It's hard to admit you're wrong when your entire sense of self is
wrapped up in your world view.

Here's a Feynman chasser/refresher on what science is.
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY)

------
ansible
From the _first paragraph_ :

 _... padded across the carpet of his homemade lab in a pair of white athletic
socks._

I'm already not taking him seriously as a scientist. Who puts carpet in a lab?
Any kind of lab, much less one that you're anything at all related to biology
or chemistry.

~~~
planteen
The picture of his machine shows it on tile.

Maybe they were referring to his office adjacent to the lab?

------
AzzieElbab
I kinda expected this article to be about mr.Crowley

