Turing was famously chemically-castrated after admitting to homosexual acts in the 1950s. He is one of a long line of scientists who have been persecuted for their beliefs or practices.
Turing isn’t the only scientist to have been persecuted for his personal or professional beliefs or lifestyle. Here’s a a list of other prominent scientific luminaries who have been punished throughout history.
In the future the story will be how religious leaders were persecuted at the hands of scientists at the beginning of the 21st Century.
Persecution is a victim's perspective, not a historian's perspective.
Hum can you name one who doesn't deserve it? And also were those religious leaders burned stoned or else in any ways shape of form??? I would like to see one name.
tlsmith1138, on 25 June 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:
If it's not junk science, it's junk journalism. Nothing worse than someone who has a job, but is too lazy to do the job. Please, waste some more of my time with misleading headlines.
Hum Hum.. (twice this time) Sure it's not a Pulitzer price, all those facts are know to the world I should say the few the world tends to refute the truth so many time but I do not see anything misleading in the title.. unless your glasses are special and you're seeing something no one else does.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.
funny how the scientists tat were persecuted turned out to be correct
The danger is to assume that persecuted scientists are correct, rather than some correct scientists were persecuted.
I am not suggesting that you, nor this article, is making such a claim.
I am merely pointing out that many more hacks and charlatans have claimed that legitimate criticism of their pseudoscience was actually persecution (just like Galileo! etc.) than legitimate scientists were persecuted.
The cases cited in the article are notable, but the exception rather than the rule.
I would recommend reading "Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler, I love that book.
Must admit that I have not researched all the facts in the book, but it gives a new take on how the church viewed sience and especially astronomy in 15:th and 16:th century.
Most of the content from that period is built on documents and letters and, in my opinion, Galilei is as much to blame for the rift between the churc and sience as the church itself.
The pope and his astronomers were well aware that the churchs geocentric universe was wrong and very interested in the new take on astronomy, but to publicly change the religious view of the universe was something completely different, wich I can understand, these things take time.
Galilei on the other hand was a big headed jerk, again in my opinion, who tried to force the church to publicly announce that "the churh was wrong and Galilei was right". The church had no other option than to react to this, wich is understandable as I see it, and no I do not believe in God so not defending the church out of loyalty.
For a more in depth take on it I recommend the book!
Ever been called Stupid? But when you have a clever comeback then they say...Don't Get Smart!
Posted 27 June 2012 - 03:15 AM
Junior Chubb, on 25 June 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:
The masses (and people with power) do not like change. So when someone offers something new that changes views or opinion (or removes that power) it is attacked.
It still happens today and will always happen, but instead of violence these day's it is in the form of 'internet forum ridicule' or IFR as I would like it to be called from here on in.
I agree. Back then people were burned at the stake for heritical beliefs. Now days ridicule is use. Religion was the powerhouse back then and had the final word.
Now that Main Stream Science is a big player they have their form of doctrine and anything that strays from the norm of science on certain subjects it gets slandered.
One would think that science would welcome new ideas (even though how strange it could be) but obviously that's not the case.
Science has become the new religion. Many scientists can be close minded on certain things. Just look at how Daniel Shechtman's 1984 quasicrystal discovery was rejected by many top scientists. He won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemisty...