Paradigm shift is always difficult. There is a natural conservatism in
scientists such that, if current understanding explains 95% of observations,
it may be deemed preferable to stick with what you know and live with a 5%
exception rate.
Things are complicated further by the fact that there exist, undeniably, a
number of eccentrics who make it their business to come up with abstruse
alternative science which they then attempt to promulgate. Sometimes these
heresies are obviously unsound, sometimes they are so unintelligible that
they cannot be easily refuted. Either way, taking the effort to try and
refute them is inevitably time wasted. So the usual practice is to try and
avoid them.
As a result, anyone who comes up with a bright idea that totally overturns
conventional understanding is likely to find that most workers assume that
he's one of the eccentrics, on the grounds that the number of unsound
heretics is much greater than the number of truly inspired revolutionaries.
This is the easiest approach, and often turns out to be correct as well.
Wegener is always cited as the heretic who was vindicated in the end, but
most of us could cite plenty of Wegener-wannabes who were quite justifiably
panned.
How to counteract the possibility of overlooking something of real value is
tricky, especially when in some cases the arguments are genuinely above most
people's heads.
Needless to say, the above remarks are intended in a purely general sense.
Roger Musson
|