The Stolen Credit For What Makes Up the Sun 109
StartsWithABang writes: Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun and know it's a ball of (mostly) hydrogen, generating energy by combining those protons in a chain into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. But before we even knew that nuclear fusion was possible, we needed to figure out what the Sun was made out of, a more difficult task than you'd imagine. The credit was given to Henry Norris Russell (of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram fame), but he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne, after discouraging her from publishing her work on the subject four years prior.
footnote, not headline (Score:1)
he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne,
Re:footnote, not headline (Score:5, Informative)
he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne,
He didn't "steal" it, and she wasn't his student.
Cecilia Payne's dissertation originally concluded that stars (particularly our Sun) were composed primarily of ionized hydrogen and helium, with smaller amounts of other elements, mostly metals. Russel reviewed her dissertation, and dissuaded her from presenting that conclusion, because the common wisdom at the time was that the Sun was made of the same stuff as the Earth, but heated to incandescence.
Later, Russel realized that Payne was right, and gave her brief credit in one of his papers for the idea. Unfortunately the idea was still attributed to Russel for a long time. Payne did get the recognition she deserved, albeit belatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Later, Russel realized that Payne was right, and gave her brief credit in one of his papers for the idea.
Yes, I believe this was covered in the reboot Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson last year.
Fuck off (Score:2, Informative)
Fuck off with that sensationalist garbage. He didnt "steal" anything. He admitted he was wrong and that she was right when it became clear that she was.
> The credit was given to Henry Norris Russell (of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram fame)
Citation?
This site has been completely taken over by man-hating feminists.
Re: Fuck off (Score:4, Informative)
Citation: From Wikipedia - "After Payne was proven correct, Russell briefly credited Payne for discovering that the sun had a different chemical composition from Earth in his paper. However the credit was still generally given to him instead."
Wikipedia cites http://www.webcitation.org/5o0fZYSgo as source. Did we do enough of your homework for you?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Ahem. It's called "herstory". Stop supporting terms used by the cisgender-priviledged patriarchy to oppress women.
-SJW
Re: (Score:2)
You would be wrong. The coiners of the neologism called it "herstory".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they were wrong, but not for what you say. 'History' was not made from the words "his" and "story".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well sure, but you've got to admit that the fact that a woman of the time was probably functionally illiterate meant that her-essays were pretty terrible!
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the San Jose Water company care about this at all?
Re: (Score:2)
*crickets*
Re: (Score:2)
Water contains hydrogen. Drink enough, and you too can be a star!
Re: (Score:1)
This site has been completely taken over by man-hating feminists.
Well, you're not enough of a man to be a target so don't worry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
you can steal accidentally.
thing is, would he have thought of it otherwise? he had the mindset that it was made of same stuff as earth, was presented with (I presume some sort of technical/scientific) proof that it wasn't and dismissed it.
then published the stuff later himself.
Not Even Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
This is not even wrong. Payne had the idea first, Russell thought it was wrong, Russell later changed his mind and gave Payne credit: http://blogs.britannica.com/20... [britannica.com] His work cites hers.
This is how science is supposed to work, although there is always a factor of fame involved in credit-giving, and women have in general not been as forceful in claiming or defending credit as men.
Furthermore, how many people claiming to be "outraged" by this were even aware of who had been given credit for figuring out the composition of the sun in the first place? Who amongst us is "shocked, shocked" that Russell--whom they had been giving credit to all these years, citing in papers, talking up at cocktail parties--didn't actually make the discovery that is commonly and incorrectly attributed to him?
Re:Not Even Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The Facts Don't Matter Because "Narrative" (Score:5, Insightful)
But
This is why things like Gamergate (and Slashdot's atrocious coverage of it) matter, even if you yourself don't personally care about videogames; it is a fight against neo-puritans who want to filter ALL types of content (not just games, comics, music, movies, etc) you're allowed to see, and refuse to acknowledge the work of those who don't buy into the "narrative."
P.S. Clearly I'm biased, so if any of you think that my article submission is unworthy for some other reason, let me know (seriously).
Re: (Score:1)
It's people like you that allow me to hold onto the notion that our species, or at least our civilization isn't fucked beyond repair.
Re:The Facts Don't Matter Because "Narrative" (Score:4, Interesting)
...his vids that expose...
It is often extremely difficult to find a perfect example of something when trying to explain it, so many of the materials people use when trying to make a larger point have flaws and can be nitpicked pretty easily. Any sufficiently complicated argument suffers from this when you attempt to compress it into a smaller time-scale, making it easy to overlook the 'bigger picture' and be offended by the examples presented. How do you distil the years of experiences and biases which have lead you to a particular argument in an objective manner in a short presentation without exposing yourself to seriously flawed examples, regardless of the topic? Try convincing a religious person why they should abandon their religion in 20 minutes without presenting examples that can be nitpicked; it's pretty difficult, because the topic is quite complex when you drill down into it (even though it seems pretty simple, it really requires analysing why they believe first).
I read somewhere that the best way to respond to an argument is to re-state your opponent's argument, as you understand it and in the best possible light, comment on and discuss the parts you agreed with or liked, and then present the pieces you disagree with. *some searching later* turns out it was Daniel Dennett, here: http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ [brainpickings.org].
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
Turns out I forgot the learned bit. The reason I'm replying is because I don't think the video creator you mentioned prescribes to a method of arguing which is useful for much beyond entertainment for those who already agree, whatever the subject under discussion. Which is partly the fault of the format – it's much faster and easier to make a dissection-style video that is short and matches your preconceived viewpoint than it is to do the above – but that's not really an excuse for intellectual laziness in the end.
Note that I'm not saying his opponents are correct – some use the same approach as he does and fail for the same reasons. I'm pointing out that his videos don't prescribe to any form of argument which could be used to convince a person to change their mind. He does not expose anyone, because the people who watch them already agree. The best that most short youtube arguments aspire to is entertainment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because even after Russell gave her credit for showing this first, people still credited him with the discovery.
So this story doesn't contradict that narrative that people in the early 20th C were sexist and unfair to the achievements of women. But it also shows that not all men fit this mold. So it's good news for human nature; it means most of us have caught with the best of us from a hundred years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is this news?
Um, uh ... because ... science! Women! Memes!
Helium (Score:5, Interesting)
The article missed the opportunity to mention that the spectral line for helium was unknown at the time, and was first discovered in the sun. Hence the name was adopted from Helios, the Greek god of the sun.
this is familiar (Score:1)
I remember reading a book some 10-15 years ago where a statement read something along the lines of:
"The history is riddled with people who made discoveries and people who took credit for them"
But I can't remember the blimmin name of the book! A brief history of time isn't, a history of nearly everything isn't either...
Does anyone know what book I'm talking about?
Re: (Score:1)
I remember reading a book some 10-15 years ago where a statement read something along the lines of: "The history is riddled with people who made discoveries and people who took credit for them" But I can't remember the blimmin name of the book! A brief history of time isn't, a history of nearly everything isn't either... Does anyone know what book I'm talking about?
Re:this is familiar (Score:4, Funny)
That's hertory! There's no fucking "s" after you remove "his"!
After you remove 'him' there is no fucking, period.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. As I explained to you above, the origin of "herstory" was based on the flawed etymology of thinking "history" came from the combination of "his" and "story". Hence why they coined the term "herstory".
Cosmos (Score:5, Informative)
This was the subject of an episode of the Neil deGrasse Tyson Cosmos. The summary is pretty sensationalistic too. Hertzsprung discouraged his student from publishing because he thought she was wrong. When she was persistent and turned out to be right, they published. Professors always get the credit for what their students do.
Also, what is "combining those protons in a chain"?
Re: (Score:2)
Hertzsrung --> Russell.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hertzsrung --> Russell.
Is there any way you could provide a visual aid for that? Maybe a diagram?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cosmos (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually a bit of a problem. There are lots of stories about how women get screwed over for credit for scientific discoveries. They do, of course, but so do male students. So did whoever figured out the tungsten light bulb filament in Edison's lab, the guy who came up with the rounded corners on the iPhone, and the intern who actually put together that proposal your boss presented last week.
When you look into this particular case a bit, it seems like Russell actually acted pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame them. After the first episode, it was pretty clear it wasn't going to be an informative show about science.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be because not a one of them was a student when they made their discoveries. Interesting how that works huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Weird because I can't name Einstein's professor. Or Newton's.
Isaac Barrow. Now where do I collect my geek medal?
Re: (Score:2)
Young Marsden Aaaward (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep women did everything. (Score:2, Funny)
They invented the sun. They ate the apple.
How is this different than now? (Score:2)
Run on sentences (Score:1)
Sure, it's easy to today to look at slashdot and know that it's all (mostly) clickbait, generating revenue for Dice by tricking viewers into visiting websites who think that they can make money by spraying advertizing onto eyeballs in a vain attempt to...
Damn! I never realized how hard it is to make convoluted run-on se
So, I suppose ... (Score:2)
If you want to discuss this with me further, I'll be staying in the garage for the next few weeks.
You mean Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? (Score:1)
...to use her actual name.
I found this story confusing because when I studied astronomy back in the 1980s, we talked about her extensively, and she was given full credit for her work.
Want an example of a female astronomer who didn't get the credit she deserved? Jocelyn Bell. Nothing like being overlooked for a Nobel.
Bad advice right from the start! (Score:3)
Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun
No it's not, unless you're trying to blind yourself. Use eclipse glasses or make a pinhole projector.
I think what you meant was "look at Wikipedia [etc]"
Re:Bad advice right from the start! (Score:5, Funny)
What does the guide say? (Score:2)
It's also interesting to note that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy contains the following entry for the 3rd rock from the Sun: Mostly harmless. Someone else submitted a better description ("third rate planet") but it was dismissed because it was written by a Dick.
the nuclear theory is wrong (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
you got an electric university electricity generator for sale or something?
Delayed due to 'consensus' (Score:2, Insightful)
It took all her years of graduate research and effort, and four additional years, and finally someone with the stature Russell agreeing with her, to overturn the consensus that believed her conclusions were wrong.
If her supervisor hadn't have been Russell, it would have taken longer. And it would have taken much much longer if there had been anyone with a strong vested interest in her being wrong, say a political agenda depending on sun composition or many scientists trying to maintain a funding source to
Re:Out of respect for Dice's agenda, let me ask... (Score:4, Funny)
Dox this person and get them fired from their job!!!
-SJW
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please. I was taking a swipe at Dice, not at women.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the AC was making a sarcastic, joke post. A person who was being serious wouldn't sign their post with "SJW".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the AC was making a sarcastic, joke post. A person who was being serious wouldn't sign their post with "SJW".
Ah! I didn't realize "SJW" was a thing until I just Googled it. My bag of memes has grown.
Re:Out of respect for Dice's agenda, let me ask... (Score:5, Informative)
I think that SJW is a quite appropriate subject to bring when talking about this article.
Let me list a few ways in which just the summary is wrong, deliberately twisting the truth so that SJW can get their righteous anger on.
o Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin is not someone I have not heard of. She was a professor at Harvard, a department chair, and hers is a name that you are very likely to hear even if you have just taken classes there.
o Her credit was not stolen. The man who dissuaded her from publishing part of her theory thought that the claim, unsupported, would expose her to ridicule. He did not do it to steal the credit - once he actually proved the claim, he gave her credit in the paper, and actually admitted there, without having to, that he was originally wrong.
And seriously, do we have to twist the facts to make things more interesting? There are enough wrongs to get angry about, and every time lies that are meant to inflame are discovered, assholes get to cast doubt on other, true injustices.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like we need to twist everything possible to provide support for some political agenda or another. It's not limited to social justice types, but they do seem to be prominent users of the technique.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the summary's wrong, it's clickbait for StartsWithABang at medium.com.
If you remember, that's the hiptard who thinks he knows more about designing space probes than people who design space probes.
He's the Bennet Haselton of astronomy.
Re: (Score:1)
In fairness, she could possibly have delayed graduation another four years while gathering evidence to try to prove her hypothesis herself before publishing, but there was no guarantee she was right, and she was probably long past ready to graduate and get on with her life. I know I certainly was after only six years in college. Or she could have published prematurely and garnered the usual ridicule for making an outrageous claim without solid evidence, likely destroying her reputation and career before it
Re:Out of respect for Dice's agenda, let me ask... (Score:4, Insightful)
She made an important scientific breakthrough.
In my opinion, thats very sexy. 10/10, five stars.
Re: (Score:2)
She made an important scientific breakthrough.
In my opinion, thats very sexy. 10/10, five stars.
Really? It think of sexy and scientifically-productive as kind of orthogonal qualities. Case in point: Marie Curie was undeniably brilliant, but I wouldn't have much of an urge to sleep with her.
Re: (Score:3)
She made an important scientific breakthrough.
In my opinion, thats very sexy. 10/10, five stars.
Really? It think of sexy and scientifically-productive as kind of orthogonal qualities. Case in point: Marie Curie was undeniably brilliant, but I wouldn't have much of an urge to sleep with her.
Well her husband Pierre Curie apparently did. They had two children: Irène (scientist and Nobel laureate, along with her parents) and Ève (writer and pianist.)
Re: (Score:3)
Good. More sexily smart women for those of us who appreciate them.
Nobody considers it all that strange when a woman falls in love with some brilliant gnome for his mind, why should it be any different if the genders are reversed?
Re: (Score:1)
Jeez. Troll?
I'd have gone for Sarcastic, were that an option. Or perhaps Mildly Amusing.
Somebody's gotta get their humor detector recalibrated, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.