What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Was Wrong: Startling Truths About Cures, Theories & Inventions They Declared Impossible
Two months before the Wright brothers' historic flight at Kitty Hawk, a top scientist declared that "no possible combination of known substances, known forces of machinery and known forms of force can be united in a practical (flying) machine..." Germ theory was first advanced in ancient Sanskrit texts thousands of years ago, but wasn't widely accepted until late in the 19th century.
Space travel was declared "utter bilge" in 1956 by the British astronomer Royal, one of a long line of scientists who "proved" it was impossible.
Throughout history, it has been difficult, even impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. Yet during the last two centuries, there has been a veritable explosion of new cures, theories, techniques, and inventions that have revolutionized aviation, space travel, communications, medicine, and warfare.
Most of them, of course, were deemed "impossible."
Science Was Wrong is a fascinating collection of stories about the pioneers who created or thought up the "impossible" cures, theories, and inventions "they" said couldn't work. How many have suffered or died because cures weren't accepted? How many inventions have been quashed? How much progress was delayed or denied?
You will end up shaking your head in disbelief and even disgust as you learn the answers.
Space travel was declared "utter bilge" in 1956 by the British astronomer Royal, one of a long line of scientists who "proved" it was impossible.
Throughout history, it has been difficult, even impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. Yet during the last two centuries, there has been a veritable explosion of new cures, theories, techniques, and inventions that have revolutionized aviation, space travel, communications, medicine, and warfare.
Most of them, of course, were deemed "impossible."
Science Was Wrong is a fascinating collection of stories about the pioneers who created or thought up the "impossible" cures, theories, and inventions "they" said couldn't work. How many have suffered or died because cures weren't accepted? How many inventions have been quashed? How much progress was delayed or denied?
You will end up shaking your head in disbelief and even disgust as you learn the answers.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
18 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
About the author
Stanton T. Friedman
34 books82 followersStanton T. Friedman was a nuclear physicist and professional ufologist who resided in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. He was the original civilian investigator of the Roswell incident. He worked on research and development projects for several large companies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 7, 2016
The title of this book is a paradox. The fact that there have been many instances in which science was wrong in the past is not a reason to lack confidence in the enormous importance and value of science. What individual, group or discipline is not sometimes, and even oftentimes wrong? The reason that this book is worthwhile reading is that science and the mentality of some who revere science is such that there is something embarrassing or blameworthy about making mistakes. This sounds quite trite, I am sure, but the book's listing of many cases in which the conventional wisdom of science has been wrong, and that then subsequently gives way to new forms of conventional wisdom is a valuable lesson that concerns humanity's relationship with the conventional wisdom.
Beginning with the "impossibility" of air flight, Stanton Friedman and his co-author, Kathleen Marden discuss a long list of advancements that were "impossible." The scientists who are discussed range from the now renowned Robert H. Goddard, to Immanuel Velikovsky who was a scientist who is still a popular target of skeptics, debunkers and other priests of the current scientific paradigms.
That science has been wrong on many occasions is not a rebuke to science, and the authors do not intend for it to be so. But Friedman and Marden's book is a powerful rebuke against the elevation of ego over truth or, more accurately, the pursuit of the truth. After all, when science is wrong, it is ultimately proved wrong by science!
Beginning with the "impossibility" of air flight, Stanton Friedman and his co-author, Kathleen Marden discuss a long list of advancements that were "impossible." The scientists who are discussed range from the now renowned Robert H. Goddard, to Immanuel Velikovsky who was a scientist who is still a popular target of skeptics, debunkers and other priests of the current scientific paradigms.
That science has been wrong on many occasions is not a rebuke to science, and the authors do not intend for it to be so. But Friedman and Marden's book is a powerful rebuke against the elevation of ego over truth or, more accurately, the pursuit of the truth. After all, when science is wrong, it is ultimately proved wrong by science!
November 20, 2019
I am a fan of Friedman's but this book missed the mark.
It got off to a very strong start in discussions of aviation and space and how the "impossibilitists" got it all wrong. Friedman effectively drove home the point that technologies that seemed like unachievable fantasies could quickly become even stronger and more commonplace than people would generally predict. These examples greatly reinforced the author's point about resistance to new and strange-sounding ideas.
However, I believe the author got sidetracked and began taking on topics that did not fit in with his overall theme. For instance, I think it was an error for the author to tackle cold fusion. To date people are still debating the Fleischmann–Pons claims of cold fusion. I just read a book by Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, who strongly refutes the cold fusion claims. Even though I value Friedman's analysis as a trained nuclear physicist from a prestigious university, I can't accept the reality of cold fusion simply on his word when other people with similar credentials refute the same. His argument would have been made stronger had he performed his own experiments on the subject, but there is no indication that this is the case. Since this still is a live debate (in my view), it does not fit in well with the theme of Science Was Wrong. In this case, science is still deciding.
Similarly, he should have avoided global warming. Though he makes a number of valid points, he is essentially asking the reader to take his word on the matter even though he is not a climatologist and in spite of all those who argue that global warming is both real and man made. To be clear, there is certainly nothing wrong with his having a point of view and arguing in favor of it; I am just opposed to the way he is essentially seems to be presenting his opinion as established fact.
I also thought some of his topics from the medicine and politics sections missed the mark. It seems like the theme for these topics was closer to how politics and politicians can muck things up despite contrary indications from science as opposed to the actual science being wrong. This is in sharp contrast to the earlier on-point subjects where highly educated experts were declaring a technology impossible from an intellectual point of view, not a politically driven one. I'm not saying his conclusions are wrong, just that they seemed to me to be an ill fit. But on the positive side, we can see Friedman make the argument that politics/government has the same effect on the subjects of his final section, which focuses on UFOs and psi phenomena. I just feel the message gets a little confused along the way.
As I have just alluded, Friedman finishes up his book with a section called Frontiers of Science. Here he argues in favor of the reality of UFOs and psi phenomena. For those who are already familiar with Friedman, this will come as no surprise. In general his argument is, look at all the mainstream scientists who have been dead wrong on subjects that we take for granted today - they're wrong about UFOs and psi as well. Of course he (with contributions from Marden) presents his evidence and arguments for why he believes these subjects are genuine, which is a difficult task considering the volumes of evidence out there.
All in all it was a decent book and I learned a lot of new things, even from the chapters that I felt were too far afield. And as always, his work is meticulously researched with a robust notes and bibliography included.
It got off to a very strong start in discussions of aviation and space and how the "impossibilitists" got it all wrong. Friedman effectively drove home the point that technologies that seemed like unachievable fantasies could quickly become even stronger and more commonplace than people would generally predict. These examples greatly reinforced the author's point about resistance to new and strange-sounding ideas.
However, I believe the author got sidetracked and began taking on topics that did not fit in with his overall theme. For instance, I think it was an error for the author to tackle cold fusion. To date people are still debating the Fleischmann–Pons claims of cold fusion. I just read a book by Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, who strongly refutes the cold fusion claims. Even though I value Friedman's analysis as a trained nuclear physicist from a prestigious university, I can't accept the reality of cold fusion simply on his word when other people with similar credentials refute the same. His argument would have been made stronger had he performed his own experiments on the subject, but there is no indication that this is the case. Since this still is a live debate (in my view), it does not fit in well with the theme of Science Was Wrong. In this case, science is still deciding.
Similarly, he should have avoided global warming. Though he makes a number of valid points, he is essentially asking the reader to take his word on the matter even though he is not a climatologist and in spite of all those who argue that global warming is both real and man made. To be clear, there is certainly nothing wrong with his having a point of view and arguing in favor of it; I am just opposed to the way he is essentially seems to be presenting his opinion as established fact.
I also thought some of his topics from the medicine and politics sections missed the mark. It seems like the theme for these topics was closer to how politics and politicians can muck things up despite contrary indications from science as opposed to the actual science being wrong. This is in sharp contrast to the earlier on-point subjects where highly educated experts were declaring a technology impossible from an intellectual point of view, not a politically driven one. I'm not saying his conclusions are wrong, just that they seemed to me to be an ill fit. But on the positive side, we can see Friedman make the argument that politics/government has the same effect on the subjects of his final section, which focuses on UFOs and psi phenomena. I just feel the message gets a little confused along the way.
As I have just alluded, Friedman finishes up his book with a section called Frontiers of Science. Here he argues in favor of the reality of UFOs and psi phenomena. For those who are already familiar with Friedman, this will come as no surprise. In general his argument is, look at all the mainstream scientists who have been dead wrong on subjects that we take for granted today - they're wrong about UFOs and psi as well. Of course he (with contributions from Marden) presents his evidence and arguments for why he believes these subjects are genuine, which is a difficult task considering the volumes of evidence out there.
All in all it was a decent book and I learned a lot of new things, even from the chapters that I felt were too far afield. And as always, his work is meticulously researched with a robust notes and bibliography included.
February 8, 2023
Accuracy issues but not a bad book.
June 12, 2016
My one-star rating may be a little misleading. There were definitely good, enjoyable things about this book.
Most of the chapters dealing with past events are well-researched, decently written, and well worth looking at for an introduction to the concept of scientific advancement and the pitfalls in its way.
However, this is a book with an agenda, and it becomes ever more blatant as the subject matter approaches the present. Y'see, the book title is a trifle misleading. It might better be stated as "Some scientists were incorrect, often embarrassingly so, on certain topics, or had their legitimate research hijacked by political interests who misused it."
But the main agenda of the book is to say, "gee, scientists were wrong about geocentrism, germ theory and manned flight, so you should totally take us seriously about astrology, UFOs, psychic powers and such. Oh, and global warming is a myth." And in the end, this appeal for pseudoscience rankles my temper.
For reviews of better science-related books, see http://www.skjam.com/tag/science/
Most of the chapters dealing with past events are well-researched, decently written, and well worth looking at for an introduction to the concept of scientific advancement and the pitfalls in its way.
However, this is a book with an agenda, and it becomes ever more blatant as the subject matter approaches the present. Y'see, the book title is a trifle misleading. It might better be stated as "Some scientists were incorrect, often embarrassingly so, on certain topics, or had their legitimate research hijacked by political interests who misused it."
But the main agenda of the book is to say, "gee, scientists were wrong about geocentrism, germ theory and manned flight, so you should totally take us seriously about astrology, UFOs, psychic powers and such. Oh, and global warming is a myth." And in the end, this appeal for pseudoscience rankles my temper.
For reviews of better science-related books, see http://www.skjam.com/tag/science/
August 31, 2014
Nuclear physicist "Stanton T. Friedman", the author of this book tells us "we need to avoid jumping to conclusions merely because well-educated people make false claims of impossibility." He shows us how often evolving scientific dogmas have been wrong and data that contradicted those dogmas was deliberately ignored and how government-controlled policy of denial have sometimes turned lies into official truths. Some of us already knew this is it works.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews