Are you even reading the articles you link/repost? He MAY have played a key role in a major contribution. He also held a press conference and made comments that indicate he didn't even understand what the MRI was most useful more. There are other people who were at least as involved as he was who didn't whine and cry about it in the press.

AND ITS A NOBEL PRIZE, NOT A CERTIFICATE THAT EVERYONE WHO MAKES A CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE MAKES.

Go look at all of the people who have been passed over for Nobel Prizes, he is at the bottom of the list when it comes to merit.

Sry but you're making the typical mistaken assumption around here that everyone makes. I read another article that said something along the lines that he is the one mainly responsible for making the use of the MRI practical.

Which is?

Firstly it is easy to find articles that say a lot of things, and even easier to find something stating one side of what was a very heated debate.

Ignoring that, even if he made it practical all by himself that doesn't necessitate that he receive the Nobel prize over someone who made it possible. Ignoring even that, you still haven't established that his religious beliefs are likely to have played a significant role in his not getting the prize. Ignoring all of this, this is not the first, the last, and certainly not the most conspicuous decision to exclude someone from receiving the Nobel prize when it is awarded for research they played a part in.

You've tried to gloss over my point entirely by nitpicking. Obv Damadian felt something because he made a protest.

The point is that the scientific community is now less objective about how they view their peers.

This dividing of scientists into camps is bound to have professional consequences and professional consequences will lead to scientific consequences.

Even the perception that one is disapproved of by his peers leads to problems.

Damadian is the one that made it possible.

Didn't you read the NY Times article? It specifically states:

On Thursday, the Franklin Institute, the science museum in Philadelphia, bestowed one of its two annual Bower Awards on Dr. Damadian. Each year, the awards -- one for science and one for business leadership -- focus on a different research field. This year, the field is brain research.

''There is no controversy in this,'' said Dr. Bradford A. Jameson, a professor of biochemistry at Drexel University who was the chairman of the committee that chose the winners. ''If you look at the patents in this field, they're his.''

Dr. Damadian, 68, said that he was honored by the award and that the Nobel dispute no longer concerned him. ''I put that issue behind me, and I don't want to much talk about it,'' he said.

But he added: ''I made the original contribution and made the first patent. If people want to reconsider history apart from the facts, there's not much that I can do about that.''

What are you even saying? That the scientific community hurt his feelings by not giving him the most prestigious prize in the world and $1,000,000? Just because he thinks he should have won doesn't make him right. And you are confusing being objective with being nice.

Yes I read it, and it made it very clear that the majority of the scientific community disagrees entirely with the quote you bolded. That's why it's called a controversy, because there are people on both sides of it. The problem with your reasoning is that you go from this guy claiming he should have won and a few people agreeing to assuming that he's right and it was a conspiracy because of his religion. based on nothing. It is not unusual for someone to feel snubbed because a Nobel Prize is awarded for research they were involved in and they don't get to share it (Penicillin is a great example, and the snubee in that instance has a much better case).

I'm really just focusing on the polarization of scientists.

Its bound to affect science. If some brilliant scientist's research suffers because he is a theist and that makes some skeptic disapprove of him who is making decisions about his work and professional acumen then that is a loss to everyone. It's not all that different from the abuse Gallileo was subjected to.

They could have given up to three prizes on this but they only gave 2.

That's why I see the devil's hand in the evolution controversy. The devil always messes with God's creation. If God decided to use evolution as his mechanism so be it.

But why are the scientists turning on the scientists or peer pressuring each other. Sounds like some kind of spiritual influence to me.

I understand the Christian literalists fighting evolution. There is always a lag behind in progress and ideas. Ethics is a huge issue in both science and religion.

But when the scientists start to muscle the other scientists....Hmmmmmm

This works both ways. When a theist scientist has his work rejected because it is bad science and the theist tries to muscle the other scientists with the objection, "It's because I'm a theist isn't it?", then Hmmmmmmmm as well.


This reminds me of the time the great basketball player Bill Russell hosted Saturday Night Live. There was a story in the news at the time where somebody had been arrested for something for which he was clearly guilty. He happened to be black and just looked totally ridiculous when he tried to pull the race card and claim he was being persecuted because he was black.

Bill Russell let himself be the butt of the joke in a skit on the Show where he pullied one ridiculous stunt after another and each time he was criticized made himself look even more ridiculous by objecting, "It's because I'm black isn't it?". For the final punch line they had his mother show up and tell him how full of bs he was and he even stooped to pulling the race card on his own mother.

Sadly, race often is a factor in our society so it's no wonder the race card gets pulled so much. And of course it would be a shame if religious views intruded on evaluation of scientific work. However, I don't see evidence for it in this Damadian case.


PairTheBoard

Good post but you know PTB people hold opinions in their minds that they don't always speak of that influence their decisions. That's why we have to weigh physical evidence and outcomes so heavily in this world. Still words indicate the state of a person's heart IF they are not lying words. So we are back to weighing evidence over words and ideas: action speaks louder than words. But that doesn't mean words aren't powerful and influential.

I think the battle between God and Satan is frequently a battle for the mind.

Plus both of them are known to use "divide and conquer" techniques. It goes back even before the tower of Babel. All the way back to the family feuds in Abraham and Jacob's families. Probably as early as the Nephilim or even earlier.

(A house divided cannot stand. Unless you've got God backing you. The Hebrews were divided into 2 kingdoms. I think he hid the House of Israel though. Judah got roughed up but then Judah's always first in battle. Like the Marines on a beachhead.)

It's not like we don't use MRI machines. Him not receiving the Nobel Prize doesn't affect science, it affects his awards mantle and his bank account, which is why he screamed so loudly about it. And it is absolutely absurd to compare him to Gallileo.

Scientists argue and attempt to disprove each others' research because that's how you make a career in science. It's an integral part of the process of advancing scientific knowledge.

Yes we use MRI machines but what if he'd been discouraged from becoming a doctor before he invented his patented inventions? What if he'd decided to go into something else to avoid controversies leaving the field open to less inventive minds?

As I recall Einstein did a lot of his work almost in seclusion. His wife also a physicist gave up her career and took on all the family's personal matters and the children so he could work. Imagine everyone had been peer pressuring him.

I also doubt its his bank account. To some people the fame and chance to leave a scientific legacy would be more important.

Its a small but critical detail that affects research. You can't even play a decent game of poker with too many disruptions. Imagine coming up with the theory of relativity with your colleagues pressuring you.

If you don't like being scrutinized by your peers, scientific research is not the field for you. I'm not even sure what you're saying the problem is any more.

I'm not refering to peer review. I'm referring to the social position of one relative to his peers.

Ahh. Can you name a single group in the history of humanity where everyone got along and there was no peer pressure?

Also, if you're referring to social position then it's his own fault for acting like an ass and actively crusading against science education. Why on earth would academic scientists feel the need to be friendly with someone like that? And what does any of this have to with the nobel prize?