the guy in england

Recently I re-read the famous 1953 talk by Irving Langmuir on Pathological Science. This time, one quote stuck out.

The set-up is that Langmuir describes how he visited the lab of someone performing a supposedly breakthrough-producing type of experiment, and through some canny actions, are able to show that really the experimenter is deceiving himself into believing he’s observing phenomena when really he’s just interpreting noise. Langmuir didn’t publish an expose of this guy’s work or anything. Instead:

“I sent a copy of the letter [explaining that this experimental technique did not work] that I had written to Davis to Bohr asking him to hold it confidential but to pass it on to various people who would be trying to repeat these experiments. To Professor Sommerfeld and other people and it headed off a lot of experimental work that would have gone on. And from that time on, nobody ever made another experiment except one man in England who didn’t know about the letter that I had written to Bohr. And he was not able to confirm any of it. Well, a year and a half later, in 1931, there was just a short little article in the Physical Review in which they say that they haven’t been able to reproduce the effect.”

Here the audience laughs. Me, I felt angry on behalf of the guy in England. Sounds like he wasted a bunch of time trying to work with a result that had been published, and for which there existed no contradiction in the official record. This happened because he was an outsider, not one of the people who were in-the-know to receive the information through personal networks that people already knew decisively that the experiment didn’t work. All he had was the official published record, in which there existed no contradiction.

As Langmuir tells the story, you feel sorry for the guy who came up with the wrong findings to begin with, as it was clear he really believed them and clear he was being deluded by seeing what he wanted to see in date. But, basically, in order to spare the reputational damage to this sincere guy who had produced erroneous findings, Langmuir was willing to cost the completely innocent (maybe gullible) guy in England a bunch of time. And, who knows, maybe other people tried to get this to work as well.

The guy in England, already out of the science loop, falls further behind ever getting there because he’s wasting his time on something the insiders have had the luxury of knowing via confidential letter doesn’t work.

When an issue comes up about how there’s a finding in the literature that isn’t true, there can be lots of fretting about the interpersonal angle of publicly demonstrating this. Couldn’t you just, you know, spread the word privately–isn’t being public about it just gratuitous and mean? Of course, this assumes basically that the efforts of everybody outside-the-know isn’t worth worrying about. In this respect, the hero of the study isn’t Langmuir, but the guy in England, who at least took the time to write up his negative findings, so that maybe other people after him didn’t waste their time the way he had.

Larger point: when people are wrong, we think about the consequences for them of being publicly shown to be wrong. But we should also think of the costs that wrong ideas have for others, including people outside the networks where we privately share our opinions. This can go on for years if people don’t put work into the record showing the problems with existing research.

Author: jeremy

I am the Ethel and John Lindgren Professor of Sociology and a Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

2 thoughts on “the guy in england”

  1. This seems a bit like the scientific equivalent to deciding how to react when someone has something in their teeth. We know that it will affect them moving forward if it’s not removed, but we want to be clear that our motivations for telling them about it are seen as constructive and rooted in concern for that person (and the larger social order) rather than as an opportunity to embarrass and expose them.

    Unfortunately, in science, most responses are interpreted as the latter rather than the former and are seen as individualized attacks against particular researchers or teams. Although still seen as an important part of scientific progress, their perceived import is in exposing someone who did shoddy science rather than as a natural, and important, part of the iterative scientific process.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.