Talk:Nobel disease

Notability

Evidence from WP:BEFORE search: [1], [2], [3], [4] ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! You provided excellent examples of this term usage. But these sources defeat the argument and the subject. Namely,

Source #1. It defines the meaning of the term as something very different from the meaning stated on the page. It claims that Nobel Prize winner were not capable of doing anything in science after receiving the prize. Not true, at least with regard to some of them.

Source #2. It makes a point (using only one non-scientific example) that certain Nobel prize winners did not deserve the prize. This is something different from the subject of the page.

Source #3. It defines the subject as "many people who have won a Nobel Prize went on to become infamous for saying and believing incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional." incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional. If so, the list on this page must be reduced significantly. Any way, this is a personal opinion by non-expert at best, and it grossly misinterprets a comment by Paul Krugman on Twitter.

Source #4. It say there is no such thing as "Nobel disease" or at least this must be called and interpreted differently.

Conclusion. The term/subject of this page has been used, but the meaning and validity of the term is not clear. This is more like a WP:COATRACK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sort order of examples

The criterion for sorting the examples in this section is not clear, whether by date or alphabetically. Is there a preference? Blainster (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Long vs short explanation in list of examples

The first few examples have paragraph-length explanations of the "disease" behavior and the last few have bare telegraphic lists of keywords.

I think the short version works better. Most of these cases have a longer story attached than can be covered here, and we can just link to the relevant section of the Nobelist's bio for the details of each keyword.

For example, James Watson could just have "racist comments" or "race/sex stereotypes" as the explanation. One paragraph does not do justice to the whole rather involved story where Watson made remarks for years, then apologized, then un-apologized and was unpersoned, with the later furore happening after his health left him unable to comment further. There are enough moving parts to just say a word or two about "racism" and refer to the full bio.

An exception is Tinbergen whose reported "record time to Nobel-disease" is a notable fact for this article and deserves a sentence of its own in this article. The details of the autism theory he advocated are irrelevant.

Sesquivalent (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Each controversy must be properly and objectively explained, preferably in a few phrases. Just saying something like "Psychic, dowsing and paranormal" is not enough. And the text should be long enough to explain what it was about. Unfortunately, the sources used on the page are highly biased, so they do not provide correct picture. No specific judgement about Watson, but the current length is OK, and we could simply summarize content currently in James_Watson#Comments_on_race. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does the controversy need to be explained, and why here rather than the bio pages? There is no obvious BLP or (for the dead) fairness question if, for example, we copy the exact descriptions from the article in which they are said to have Nobel Disease. The list in this article only claims to be a collection of people for which some newspaper wrote the words "Nobel disease", not a judgement that the words were correctly applied. In fact, why not explain that distinction as a disclaimer before giving the list?Sesquivalent (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

For Watson, to continue the example, "negative comments about Africans, African-Americans and women" (or "about women and ethnic minorities") is objectively correct, it does not necessarily have to say "racist". Even "negative" can be removed if considered not objective enough, or replaced by the objectively correct "controversial". Sesquivalent (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the "controversial" is fine, agree. Yes, this could be just one phrase or several phrases, but having a very brief explanation (few phrases) is better because in that case the list is becoming self-sufficient. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Smalley

I'm very uncomfortable with having Smalley on this list. While he did embrace religion later in life, his expressed views were not incompatible with science, and the claim that he was anti-evolution is fundamentally based on a quote attributed to him used as marketing that was published at around the time of his death. Other than that one quote - which has no context, and only occurs on a single highly biased source - there is nothing else to support this. Consensus at the Richard Smalley article was that this was too poorly sourced to included there. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I tried and wasn't able to verify the quote attributed to him in the reference used by the SI authors. I found this on Quora, where a good argument is made that this quote was made up by the people promoting the book. Not sure how to proceed here, but, at the moment, I agree with Bilby's assessment that the views being attributed to him can't be verified. VdSV9•♫ 23:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

In "Skeptical Inquirer" it was referenced to Free Republic. This is just another indication that Skeptical Inquirer is not really a great RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

No self-published sources please

This edit: [5]. "Skeptic dictionary" is a self-published source, see Perennial_sources. It should not be used on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The perennial sources table description of is that it is generally reliable, but should not be used on living persons. Curie isn't a living person. And it's not just a website, it was originally a book, but it has been republished online and expanded by the author. I still think Curie should be kept. VdSV9•♫ 02:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The "perennial sources" say this is a self-published source. The book might be not, depending on who was the publisher (what would be the ref with pages?). But I see a bigger problem for the whole page. A lot of people in the general population do or say certain stupid/strange things (no one usually pay attention). But this page and cited sources imply that Nobel Prize winners do or say these things because they are Nobel Prize winners. It appears there is zero scientific evidence of that. This is probably the reason such a non-existing phenomenon has been described only in a few popular science sources. Sure, people will pay a lot more attention to something that a Nobel Prize winner would say, hence they might unduly promote something that has no a scientific basis (just as the Nobel disease phenomenon itself). But this is different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

See this posting, Thinking Outside the Box Is Not a Disease, it makes an excellent point. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The website you linked to is run by the Discovery Institute, a group that promotes intelligent design, so it isn't very reliable. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is probably the reason such a non-existing phenomenon has been described only in a few popular science sources.

Except that isn't true? There's a published paper here and here that discuss it. Heck, there was a joke article published in Science back in 1971 making fun of people who exhibit nobelitis, particularly the author themselves. Silverseren^C 20:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

John Clauser

He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022, and in 2023 publicly denied climate change, according to the wikipedia article on him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clauser 2A00:23A8:946:F101:A007:9ADD:E762:80D2 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

All that may be true, but if a source doesn't mention "nobel disease" in relation to him we can't add him. This is about the neologism. If the neologism isn't used, it isn't an example. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This Berliner Zeitung article is behind a paywall, but appears to mention Clauser in connection with "Nobelitis". Can anyone access it? OsFish (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You could go ask for a copy over at the resource request noticeboard, OsFish. Silverseren^C 23:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, have just asked.OsFish (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at the article. It definitly mentions Nobel Disease in the last paragraph, and it definitly mentions Clauser in an earlier section. However, it does not specifically say that Clauser is an example of "Nobel Disease", although you could read it that way, and it does say that he holds an unscientific belief. I think for a BLP we would need a clearer "Clauser is an example of Nobel Disease" or "people who suffer from Nobel disease include", especially given that in this case I think it overstates his position, making me a bit wary of the article's reliability. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Any chance of a copy of the text? OsFish (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about coyright if I was to paste it directly. The two relevant sections are paragraph 8:

Besonders hellhörig sollte man allerdings werden, wenn jemand behauptet, etwas sei so und nicht anders – und sich der Kritik entzieht. Wenn er nicht mehr offen ist für ein wirkliches Streben nach gesichertem Wissen. Wenn zum Beispiel Nobelpreisträger wie der Quantenforscher John Clauser behaupten, die gesamte Klimaforschung sei falsch, weil deren Modelle die Wirkung der Wolken nicht einbezögen, dann ist das eine extreme, unwissenschaftliche Meinung. Denn der komplexe Einfluss von Wolken wird durchaus erforscht.

and in the last paragraph (paragraph 10):

Als Nobelitis oder Nobel Disease wird zum Beispiel das Phänomen bezeichnet, dass sich manche Nobelpreisträger in Themenbereiche vorwagen, in denen sie keine Experten sind, und dabei scheitern.

Definitly mentions both Clauser and "Nobel disease", but not in the same paragraph and without an explicit connection, although there is probably an implicit one. - Bilby (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And ooh. That's tricky. To be honest, based on that (keeping in mind it's just excerpts) I would be inclined to say it's enough, but I haven't seen the whole text and BLP preaches caution. Maybe wait for a bit until somewhere else says it too? Anyone else have any views?OsFish (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, here is an archived version of the article, courtesy of one of the good people at resources request. OsFish (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)