What are the names of some really bad scientists or proponents of pseudoscience?

Question

I don't have time to explain why I need to know this, but I need the names of some famously terrible scientists (bonus points if they're chemists). Also welcome are names of pioneers of various pseudosciences. My ability to find pictures of these people is crucial so keep that in mind. Thanks!

Answer 1

Stanley Pons, Department of Chemistry, University of Utah
Trofim Lysenko, Institute of Genetics, USSR Academy of Science
René Blondlot, Department of Physics, University of Nancy
Nikolai Fedyakin/Boris Derjaguin, Institute for Physical Chemistry, Moscow

Edit:

I forgot my all-time candidate for worst scientist,

Pete Duesberg, UC-Berkeley, Dept. of Irrelevancy

Answer 2

Wow, there's so much material. I'll limit it to three areas: Creationism, HIV denial and Scientific racism.

The impact of creationism is zero in science. However, a few vocal people are still trying to fight science. The Intelligent Design (ID) stuff is the latest. Philip Johnson, a retired Berkeley law professor, is considered the founder of the intelligent design movement. Another prominent ID'er is Jonathan Wells, author of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?"

The people who deny that HIV causes AIDS are a more troubling group--instead of just promoting ignorance they are undoubtedly costing people their lives. Perhaps the best known is Peter Duesberg, a UC Berkeley virologist.

Not surprisingly, there is overlap between the two groups--the ID'er Philip Johnson was one of the initial 31 signatories of the HIV denier list--Deusberg didn't sign until a couple years later--as did Jonathan Wells, the other ID proponent mentioned above.

I find the "Scientific racists" to be among the scariest though. One of the best known is Richard Lynn, who argues that IQ and thus intelligence differs widely across the planet, being extremely low in sub-Saharan Africa. He is also a Holocaust denier.

You must have noticed from the above that people who believe in one form of pseudoscience often believe in others.

EDIT: you say you're looking for photos. The two ID guys:

http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000118224/
http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson.html

The others are in the links below.

Answer 3

Stan Miller- made a couple of amino acids in a test tube and then bragged about "creating life"
Earnst Haeckl- made fake drawings as "proof" that fish and humans have a common ancestor.
Charles Darwin- observed small changes in animals and then claimed that all life forms have a common ancestor. His book, "The Origin of Species" never discusses the origin of species.
Charles Lyell- made up the geologic column assuming that the rate of change always stays the same.
Stephen J. Gould- honestly believed that a bird can pop out of a reptilian egg (punctuated equilibrium).
Sigmund Freud- His theories were all-embracing and untestable. He also hated anyone who disagreed with him.
Aristotle- a smart man, but a poor scientist who believed everything revolved around the earth.
One thing all of these men had in common is that they believed it some form of evolution.
Scientists who were creationists-
Copernicus
Galileo
Kepler
Newton
Einstein
and many others

So before any evolutionist points his finger at a creationist he should remember there are three pointing right back at him...

Answer 4

First, let's define "pseudoscience" (stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia):

"Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method."

The hallmarks of pseudoscience are:

1. Use of vague, exaggerated, or untestable claims.
Example: The statement "God created all life in its present form" is untestable because the very concept of God defies scientific verification.

2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation. In other words, proponents of pseudoscience put forth theories that cannot be falsified. True scientific theories are falsifiable, should strong enough SCIENTIFIC evidence be found. Also, pseudoscientists reverse the burden of proof, claiming that the skeptic must prove his or her case, rather than the claimant. In real science, the burnen of proof lies with the claimant, and no respectable scientist would make a claim without providing ample evidence in support.

3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts. Pseudoscientists are not interested in subjecting their ideas to scientific experimentation. Real scientists publish their results, so that anybody so inclined could duplicate them. Pseudoscientists have no methodology they can share with the scientific community.

4. Lack of progress. Real science changes and progresses over time. Pseudoscience does not. Two examples are astrology and creationism - concepts that have remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Modern-day creationists and astrologers attempt to make evidence fit their ancient claims, rather than the other way around.

5. Personalization of issues. Pseudoscientists attack the character of anybody who is skeptical of their claims and believe that real scientists are trying to suppress them. In reality, real scientists are not interested in suppressing pseudoscientists because there's no reason to. The claims of a pseudoscientist do not figure in the work of a real scientist. Also in this note, creationists often argue that "evolutionism" is as much a religious belief as is creationism. The acceptance of the mountains of scientific evidence for evolution in no way amounts to a religion, of course, since religion implies faith, not evidence. Nevertheless, creationists make the claim in order to place creationism on equal footing with evolutionary biology. No real scientist would ever attempt to place evolutionary biology on the same ground as creationism.

6. Use of misleading language. Pseudoscientists often use scientific-sounding language in an attempt to lend scientific credibility to their ideas. One blatant example of this is referring to creationism as "creation science" when, as we have seen, it is nothing of the sort.

So creationism and astrology are pseudosciences. It isn't logically consistent to claim otherwise. A list of astrologers can be found here: http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/memoriallist.html

The Creation/Evolution Continuum gives the names of influential thinkers from all stations. It's a pretty good resource for getting a grasp on what different groups believe. It's located here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp

Answer 5

Michael Behe and William Dembski are two.

Answer 6

Al Gore. He thinks he is an expert on the environment but he is only a pawn in a scheme to limit carbon emissions and make many people rich off of carbon credit trading.

Answer 7

Charles Darwin and Al Gore are two names that come to mind.