4 ms·

>The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics One of my favorite examples of how religiously dogmatic scientists can be about existing

>The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics One of my favorite examples of how religiously dogmatic scientists can be about existing theory is centered around the discovery of quasicrystals. Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel prize for discovering a form of crystals that formed regular non-repeating patterns like Penrose tiles or the tiles used on some Mosques. As evidence, he had electron microscope images of the materiel, very clearly proving the veracity of his discovery, yet double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling took particular pleasure in making his life a living hell, declaring that "there is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists". >In an interview this year with the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Shechtman said: "People just laughed at me." He recalled how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and a double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening "crusade" against him. After telling Shechtman to go back and read a crystallography textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for "bringing disgrace" on the team. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-... You would think that scientists would be willing to accept physical evidence even if it isn't covered by existing theory, but sadly, they are perfectly willing to reject it.

Retric 8y ago
I think we need to separate cases with actual evidence like what you are describing from default behavior. With a little evidence you can defend spending a little more resources studying the same thing. Over time that feedback loop works to both efficiently spend money and change orthodoxy. That’s different from saying X seems likely based on gut feeling or whatever. In the case with zero evidence the goal is to find the cheapest way to gather any support and this initial effort is generally cheap enough to self fund. If not, looking for funding outside of normal channels is a viable option. That proof of concept stage is something of a road block, but less so than generally portrayed.
Farradfahren 8y ago
I sometimes wish there was a witness protection program for theorys, that was out of reach for those theory schools currently in power. Preferably it would be managed by another hard science from a diffrent field for each field. That way, the adherence to methods and principles could be checked, but no pregone conclusion would went into this.
wavepruner 8y ago
This is particularly interesting because Pauling has been widely panned for his advocacy of high-dose Vitamin C usage. Many of the great scientists I respect seem to have this dynamic. They challenge existing scientific authorities, only to succeed and become the scientific authority that limits other challengers.

Retric 8y ago

I think we need to separate cases with actual evidence like what you are describing from default behavior. With a little evidence you can defend spending a little more resources studying the same thing. Over time that feedback loop works to both efficiently spend money and change orthodoxy. That’s different from saying X seems likely based on gut feeling or whatever. In the case with zero evidence the goal is to find the cheapest way to gather any support and this initial effort is generally cheap enough to self fund. If not, looking for funding outside of normal channels is a viable option. That proof of concept stage is something of a road block, but less so than generally portrayed.

Farradfahren 8y ago

I sometimes wish there was a witness protection program for theorys, that was out of reach for those theory schools currently in power. Preferably it would be managed by another hard science from a diffrent field for each field. That way, the adherence to methods and principles could be checked, but no pregone conclusion would went into this.

wavepruner 8y ago

This is particularly interesting because Pauling has been widely panned for his advocacy of high-dose Vitamin C usage. Many of the great scientists I respect seem to have this dynamic. They challenge existing scientific authorities, only to succeed and become the scientific authority that limits other challengers.