What Happened To The Hermit Scientist?

Martin Gardner wrote “The Hermit Scientist” in 1950 as an analysis of how pseudoscience originates and spreads. I just happened to come across this piece recently and was surprised to realise how well it holds even today (unfortunately).

In this essay, I will reflect on how Gardner approached the notion of pseudoscience back in the day. While I am at it, I will also frame the present state of pseudoscience seen through Gardner’s lens as well.

I see this essay being relevant to anyone who makes life decisions based on scientific thinking and scientific methods/proofs. Without any further ado, let us begin.

This essay is supported by Generatebg

The Pseudoscience of the 1950s

In “The Hermit Scientist”, Gardner dissects the phenomenon of pseudoscience with a critical and incisive lens. He describes a period where sensational, unverifiable theories spread like wildfire, captivating the imagination of the public, and misguide them in the process.

As a person living in a world 70-odd years after Gardner wrote this article, I have the remarkable benefit of hindsight.

It is interesting to note that in the 1950s era, there were scientists making claims that an adult’s disease roots in the mother’s experiences affecting the foetus, celestial objects influenced “historical” (religious) events, etc.

If these claims sound ridiculous all by themselves, it is even more ridiculous to realise how fast these claims captivated the public and spread so fast.

Gardner noted that amid tensions of nuclear wars and other dangers, the public was yearning for scientific miracles and the inexplicable. And this turned out to be a fertile ground for pseudoscience to originate and flourish.

Anyway, Who is the Hermit Scientist?

Gardner identified a pattern in how pseudoscience originated in his era. He observed that the authors of these pseudoscientific theories were often not deliberate hoaxers looking for a quick buck.

Instead, they were sincere believers in their own theories. These were individuals who were often isolated from the scientific community, driven by unconscious compulsions to construct their own intricate theories.

Gardner referred to them as “hermit scientists”, who, in their solitude, spun complex theories, which were then eagerly consumed by a public starved for sensational scientific news/views.

But why would anyone care about what these “hermit scientists” thought? Well, here’s the thing. Almost no one cared about what most of these folks thought. The reason was that most of these folks were not particularly bright.

Consequently, their theories were also extremely absurd. But there were a very few of these “hermit scientists” who were very bright and could express their complex ideas very intricately with convincing words.

These were the ones who gained cult-like followings and helped spread pseudoscience.

My takeaway is that there have always been many “hermit scientists”. While most of them are harmless, a few of them are harmful and do most of the damage.

---

Pseudoscience Today: A Look Through Gardner’s Lens

Fast-forward to the present day, and the landscape of pseudoscience has evolved, but the underlying patterns remain eerily similar.

We now live in a world where the spread of misinformation is faster and more pervasive due to the internet and social media. Yet, just like in the 1950s, we still see the same patterns Gardner identified:

1. The isolated “hermit scientist”,

2. The gullible public, and

3. The sensational theories that capture the public’s imagination.

What are all the “professional” scientists doing? Well, most of the rigorous scientists read the work of “hermit scientists”, chuckle with amusement, and move along.

The very few who try and challenge the hermit scientists often lose respect in their scientific communities for the very act of engaging the hermits. This dynamic, in turn, renders a fertile environment for the hermits to flourish.

We live in an era where scientific publications are losing credibility due to them being biased and functioning like echo-chambers. On the other hand, we have social media platforms like Twitter that are aiming for absolute truth.

The result is more and more “hermit scientists” amassing cult-like followings on these social media platforms. The danger of misinformation feels more real than ever.

Given this scenario, what can we do? Let us turn back to what Gardner had to say from back in his day.

The Enduring Relevance of Gardner’s Perspective

Gardner emphasized that the novelty of a theory or the isolation of its proponent should not be grounds for its rejection. Instead, a theory should be evaluated based on its scientific adequacy.

As we strive to make life decisions based on scientific thinking, it makes sense for us to be vigilant against pseudoscience that does not meet the standards of scientific adequacy. What do I mean by this?

Well, if some “scientist” is making a claim on social media, it makes sense to “check” their claim based on scientific fundamental truths. Not everyone has the time to do this; I get that.

When I don’t have the time to check a scientific claim based on fundamental first principles, I assume that the claim is invalid. If it is important enough for me, I would make the time to fact-check the claim anyway.

This approach helps me avoid falling into the trap of “believing” someone else’s claim that something is the scientific truth. Of course, this is just a heuristic. Heuristics are not meant to guarantee 100% correct results. The aim here is to outperform the alternatives on average in the long run.

Coming back to Gardner’s exploration of pseudoscience in the 1950s, I strongly feel that it holds timeless lessons for us even today.

Pseudoscience can often be seductive with its promises of easy answers and radical discoveries. In our current era, where misinformation spreads literally close to/at the speed of light, Gardner’s analysis of the pseudoscience of his time serves as a valuable reminder for identifying and combating it in our own.

---

If you’d like to get notified when interesting content gets published here, consider subscribing.

Further reading that might interest you: 

• Variance: The Reason Why The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Poorer.
• The Bell Curve Performance Review System Is Actually Flawed
• How To Really Understand Pascal’s Wager

If you would like to support me as an author, consider contributing on Patreon.