A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, at pgs. 33 and 97 (1950). Related:
Never trust an experimental result until it has been confirmed by theory.
- Astronomer Arthur Eddington who died on November 22, 1944 (discussed here noting that: "In general, Eddington’s advice is good: when an experiment contradicts theory, theory tends to win in the end." But acknowledging exceptions and discussing Hume's take on it).
A comment makes the good point, however, that ossification of views is less of a problem in fields that are new and rapidly emerging, rather than those that have settled down a bit with enough time for competing camps over unresolved issues to emerge.
But scientists are persuaded by new evidence sometimes, as documented in this paper.
Hum... Yes and no? When a field is moving quickly, like aDNA or all the CRIPR variants in bio-chemistry I don't think this ossification of opinions occurs. The researchers have too many interesting things to do to have food fights. When a field slows down and fragments into smaller almost identical cliques, separated by inherited (in the academic sense) dogmas, then this kind of behavior can occur. So a metric could be proposed, if a field is dominated by old folks and their direct followers then then it's in the slow change zone. Heck it's almost a truism.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Guy
the last two links are dead
ReplyDelete@Guy Good idea.
ReplyDelete@Darayvus Thanks.