7 ms·

Max Planck argued that change takes time because good ideas need enough staying power to outlive their detractors: > A new scientific truth does not triumph by

Max Planck argued that change takes time because good ideas need enough staying power to outlive their detractors: > 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. https://www.benwhite.com/misc/good-ideas-need-to-outlive-the-old-guard/ https://www.benwhite.com/misc/good-ideas-need-to-outlive-the...

godelski 2y ago
Why wait when we could just not be dicks?
- blitzar 2y ago
  Why risk it when you can be a dick and assure your success?
  - godelski 2y ago
    If you are using a first order approximation, then yes, this is the correct strategy. But when you consider the elements of time or consider that there are other players in the field (incorporating either will do, both is better), then this strategy becomes far from optimal. In fact, it will lead you down the wrong direction, making your own life harder. The thing is, bullshit compounds. Builds up slowly, but we all know that's how you boil a frog. Humans have always advanced through the formation of coalitions. To optimize your own success you have to simultaneously optimize the success of others.
- tgv 2y ago
  Because you don’t know which side is the “dicks”. Evidence is rarely conclusive, and progress isn’t made by cowtowing to the researcher with the biggest mouth.
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    — <https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyon...>
    - Mithriil 2y ago
      Did you just
  - InDubioProRubio 2y ago
    Its not just a tendency to assume the best or worst, instead of investigating and dealing with reality. Its a full blown feature of evolution: Its OP. Signals engagement and understanding to society, while expending no energy on work. Idealisation is not retardation, its optimisation.
    - godelski 2y ago
      You need both people with their heads in the clouds dreaming of fantasy futures as you also need those promoting the status quo. The former gives us direction and hope (motivation) while the latter gives us stability. There is a balance. To use reinforcement learning terms: exploration and exploitation. In reality there are many more subsets that each pull in different directions. I agree that this is optimization and most of them play essential roles. But it also means we should adjust the weights and pay attention when one starts to dominate and throw things out of balance. And I'd argue that this is exactly what has happened in academia. The bureaucrats won and threw things out of balance. I'm not asking to go somewhere we've never been before, but I think many have because they don't know what the past looked like.
  - Retric 2y ago
- podgorniy 2y ago
  Almost no one is a dick on purpose. Everyone belives in their truths. Mutually incompatible truths. That is perceived as being dick from other person's truth perspective. That's the tragedy of situation. Everybody is right to some extent. Plus ego plus interest plus strong belives makes hard to move from own truth. So no, we can't stop being dicks. We're just being normal humans.
  - zosima 2y ago
    It would be nice if that was true. But school and university has taught people to first and foremost be obedient. That means a large majority of people doesn't care about the truth at all, only what the relevant authorities are saying. Many of those authorities have learnt that deciding what is true based on reality is good and all, but you live longer and better by making friends and not disagreeing with them. This is a societal failing.
    - ninalanyon 2y ago
      > school and university has taught people to first and foremost be obedient. That's not inevitable. I count myself lucky that it didn't happen to me. Unfortunately I don't know how to improve schools to the level of those I attended over half a century ago. And I lack the get up and go to make it happen anyway.
    - nathan_compton 2y ago
      This is such a weird perspective because the attitude I associate with people who go through the university system on the academic path is not obedience at all, but ruthless self advancement. Like literally where are all these obedient people you are talking about? I would characterize the problem with science as being a failure to increase the available resources commensurate with the population of people capable of doing science. In this situation, the competition becomes sufficiently fierce that it is statistically better to lie, cheat or knee-cap your competitors in some other way than it is to actually do good science, which is unreliable. What you see as fealty to scientific authority is actually just a system which has become totally dominated by resource competition to the exclusion of its actual purpose.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  There is right now a thing that you believe strongly that is false. If someone were to point it out to you you would get angry. C'est la vie.
  - error_logic 2y ago
    I actually really want to test your theory on myself. . . I wonder how I could best do that.
    - godelski 2y ago
      My method is to help your "adversary". The way I think about it is this: we can't obtain absolute truth, so we're always somewhat wrong; we have limited data and information, so we need to be able to consider what others have that we don't. Arguments can be both adversarial and cooperative, right? If your goal is to seek truth, then you need to reframe the setting. It is not "I defend my position and they make their case", that is allowing yourself to change but framed to maintain your current belief. Sure, you have good reason to maintain your belief and I'm not saying you shouldn't hold this, but it should be a byproduct of seeking truth rather than the premise.
    - ImHereToVote 2y ago
      Just pick a position you feel strongly about and imagine how your world would change if it was false. How your relationships would change. How stupid your previous statements would be. Pick anything. Climate change is a big one. I would definitely have to eat some chaff if it was shown to be false personally.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Yes. But you have to convince me that it is false (of course)[0]. I'm actually happy to tell you what I think the best way to do that would be. Would I get angry? Probably not, but it is hard to know. In fact, this is even how I review papers. I am much more detailed than my peers, and get very specific. I always also include a list at the end detailing what factors are the most important and what I think the authors could do to change my mind (if I'm rejecting). If I'm accepting, I'll also argue my points to the other reviewers and make them stand for their arguments. Truthfully, if no one is willing to change their minds, I'd say they can't be a scientist. It is a fundamental requirement simply because we are all wrong and all the time. While we can get ever and ever closer to it, absolute truth is fundamentally unobtainable. So you must always be able to update your beliefs, or else you will become more wrong as time marches on. [0] I also recognize that the inability to convince me does not mean I am right and the other person is wrong. But this too is why I specifically make a point to try to help the other person. At least as long as I believe they are acting in good faith. If I am wrong then I WANT to know. I take no shame in being wrong, but I take a lot of shame in being unwilling to right myself.
analog31 2y ago
I suspect that there are myriad counterexamples of this belief, and that it's not even testable. Perhaps one idea that he was involved in -- quantum mechanics -- encountered resistance because it had glaring problems that were not resolved with one killer test or theory, but the problems were gradually overshadowed by the empirical success of the program. Please don't turn this -- or any hypothesis -- into a "law" of how science works.
- armchairhacker 2y ago
  It's not a law. If human civilization goes extinct, no more "scientific truths" will be discovered. Or an authoritarian society could gain total control (perhaps with robotics), and for whatever reason, they decide to ban some fact and mandate that everyone be taught the lie. But scientific truths have a tendency to be adopted that falsehoods don't because truths are verified by other truths, whereas falsehoods contradict them. A lie can only be so large before it becomes self-contradictory, the truth is incomprehensibly large yet coherent. If quantum mechanics has problems, as we do more experiments, we'll encounter these problems more and more, until eventually they can no longer be overshadowed. I predict quantum mechanics will never be entirely thrown out, but it will end up as a simplified approximation of a more complex "true" model; which is still taught in schools and used wherever extra accuracy isn't needed, like classical mechanics is today. I think Max Planck's quote matters in practice too. In theory, you can discover a "scientific truth" and be recognized for it, but only long after your death, and only after someone re-discovered it (i.e. you didn't advance scientific knowledge at all). However, most people aren't particularly unique, which means that if you discover something, chances are others have discovered it, or are at least close enough that you can easily convince them. You may not be able to convince the dominant "in-group", but if your idea is obvious enough (which it probably is if it's true and you managed to discover it), you can form an "out-group", which will grow as the idea gets verified (by truths) far more often than contradicted (by lies, because there are less of the latter, since a lie can only be so large without being self-contradictory). Why do science in the first place? If your only goal is to predict something, you're doing it for yourself, so do "Science 1" and listen to others, but only to correct yourself. If your only goal is status, the truth doesn't matter to you, so do "Science 2" and make others happy. If your goal is to further scientific knowledge, I recommend you do both with preference for "Science 1": prioritize being correct, but explain your idea very well and make others happy when possible without sacrificing correctness (diplomacy). It's important to note that when you can't change the majority's factual belief, you should really evaluate your own, because usually in such cases you're the one whose wrong. But otherwise: when you can't change others beliefs, the next best thing is to (as much as possible) not care what they believe, even if they are the majority.
coolhand2120 2y ago
This tracks perfectly with Khun's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The paradigm only shifts when the old guard dies off. Scientific progress has much more to do with ego, institutions, and human nature than scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
- araes 2y ago
  Tends to be the issue with a lot of human society. Although, reading through the summary on Wikipedia, I'd suggest that a lot of the "paradigm" shifting often has to do with humanity's monopolistic rent extraction / tragedy of the commons nature. Almost every part of society, including science tends to collapse towards those that have access to ideas and resources, and are placed within society to be able to take advantage of them, and those that are exploited. Even the Nobel Prize was found to mostly favor those who were born to win a Nobel Prize. Best way to win a Nobel Prize? Be born to a wealthy family with a prestigious science background. Those that have access tend to devolve into monopolistic tendencies, exploiting the existing "paradigm" for their own gain, while punishing, excluding, or minimizing those that suggest alternatives that might in some way disrupt their power structure and control. Money, politics, military, industry, and a lot of other parts of society seem to all work about the same. Best way to work at the White House? Be born to a wealthy family with political access. Almost every person who has retrospectively been considered "great" or "revolutionary" centuries or millennia later were punished, excluded, or minimized during their own lifetime, while their contributions were then reevaluated, fought over, fetishized, and collected after their death. Galileo was mentioned elsewhere, relatively well known example, some success and acceptance at the time, mostly condemnation for "vehement suspicion of heresy." Van Gogh's work only began to attract attention in the last year of his life ... right before he shot himself in the chest with a revolver from being so mentally tortured.

godelski 2y ago

Why wait when we could just not be dicks?

blitzar 2y ago
Why risk it when you can be a dick and assure your success?
- godelski 2y ago
  If you are using a first order approximation, then yes, this is the correct strategy. But when you consider the elements of time or consider that there are other players in the field (incorporating either will do, both is better), then this strategy becomes far from optimal. In fact, it will lead you down the wrong direction, making your own life harder. The thing is, bullshit compounds. Builds up slowly, but we all know that's how you boil a frog. Humans have always advanced through the formation of coalitions. To optimize your own success you have to simultaneously optimize the success of others.
tgv 2y ago
Because you don’t know which side is the “dicks”. Evidence is rarely conclusive, and progress isn’t made by cowtowing to the researcher with the biggest mouth.
hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
- teddyh 2y ago
  — <https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyon...>
  - Mithriil 2y ago
    Did you just
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Its not just a tendency to assume the best or worst, instead of investigating and dealing with reality. Its a full blown feature of evolution: Its OP. Signals engagement and understanding to society, while expending no energy on work. Idealisation is not retardation, its optimisation.
  - godelski 2y ago
    You need both people with their heads in the clouds dreaming of fantasy futures as you also need those promoting the status quo. The former gives us direction and hope (motivation) while the latter gives us stability. There is a balance. To use reinforcement learning terms: exploration and exploitation. In reality there are many more subsets that each pull in different directions. I agree that this is optimization and most of them play essential roles. But it also means we should adjust the weights and pay attention when one starts to dominate and throw things out of balance. And I'd argue that this is exactly what has happened in academia. The bureaucrats won and threw things out of balance. I'm not asking to go somewhere we've never been before, but I think many have because they don't know what the past looked like.
- Retric 2y ago
podgorniy 2y ago
Almost no one is a dick on purpose. Everyone belives in their truths. Mutually incompatible truths. That is perceived as being dick from other person's truth perspective. That's the tragedy of situation. Everybody is right to some extent. Plus ego plus interest plus strong belives makes hard to move from own truth. So no, we can't stop being dicks. We're just being normal humans.
- zosima 2y ago
  It would be nice if that was true. But school and university has taught people to first and foremost be obedient. That means a large majority of people doesn't care about the truth at all, only what the relevant authorities are saying. Many of those authorities have learnt that deciding what is true based on reality is good and all, but you live longer and better by making friends and not disagreeing with them. This is a societal failing.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    > school and university has taught people to first and foremost be obedient. That's not inevitable. I count myself lucky that it didn't happen to me. Unfortunately I don't know how to improve schools to the level of those I attended over half a century ago. And I lack the get up and go to make it happen anyway.
  - nathan_compton 2y ago
    This is such a weird perspective because the attitude I associate with people who go through the university system on the academic path is not obedience at all, but ruthless self advancement. Like literally where are all these obedient people you are talking about? I would characterize the problem with science as being a failure to increase the available resources commensurate with the population of people capable of doing science. In this situation, the competition becomes sufficiently fierce that it is statistically better to lie, cheat or knee-cap your competitors in some other way than it is to actually do good science, which is unreliable. What you see as fealty to scientific authority is actually just a system which has become totally dominated by resource competition to the exclusion of its actual purpose.
ImHereToVote 2y ago
There is right now a thing that you believe strongly that is false. If someone were to point it out to you you would get angry. C'est la vie.
- error_logic 2y ago
  I actually really want to test your theory on myself. . . I wonder how I could best do that.
  - godelski 2y ago
    My method is to help your "adversary". The way I think about it is this: we can't obtain absolute truth, so we're always somewhat wrong; we have limited data and information, so we need to be able to consider what others have that we don't. Arguments can be both adversarial and cooperative, right? If your goal is to seek truth, then you need to reframe the setting. It is not "I defend my position and they make their case", that is allowing yourself to change but framed to maintain your current belief. Sure, you have good reason to maintain your belief and I'm not saying you shouldn't hold this, but it should be a byproduct of seeking truth rather than the premise.
  - ImHereToVote 2y ago
    Just pick a position you feel strongly about and imagine how your world would change if it was false. How your relationships would change. How stupid your previous statements would be. Pick anything. Climate change is a big one. I would definitely have to eat some chaff if it was shown to be false personally.
- godelski 2y ago
  Yes. But you have to convince me that it is false (of course)[0]. I'm actually happy to tell you what I think the best way to do that would be. Would I get angry? Probably not, but it is hard to know. In fact, this is even how I review papers. I am much more detailed than my peers, and get very specific. I always also include a list at the end detailing what factors are the most important and what I think the authors could do to change my mind (if I'm rejecting). If I'm accepting, I'll also argue my points to the other reviewers and make them stand for their arguments. Truthfully, if no one is willing to change their minds, I'd say they can't be a scientist. It is a fundamental requirement simply because we are all wrong and all the time. While we can get ever and ever closer to it, absolute truth is fundamentally unobtainable. So you must always be able to update your beliefs, or else you will become more wrong as time marches on. [0] I also recognize that the inability to convince me does not mean I am right and the other person is wrong. But this too is why I specifically make a point to try to help the other person. At least as long as I believe they are acting in good faith. If I am wrong then I WANT to know. I take no shame in being wrong, but I take a lot of shame in being unwilling to right myself.

analog31 2y ago

I suspect that there are myriad counterexamples of this belief, and that it's not even testable. Perhaps one idea that he was involved in -- quantum mechanics -- encountered resistance because it had glaring problems that were not resolved with one killer test or theory, but the problems were gradually overshadowed by the empirical success of the program. Please don't turn this -- or any hypothesis -- into a "law" of how science works.

armchairhacker 2y ago
It's not a law. If human civilization goes extinct, no more "scientific truths" will be discovered. Or an authoritarian society could gain total control (perhaps with robotics), and for whatever reason, they decide to ban some fact and mandate that everyone be taught the lie. But scientific truths have a tendency to be adopted that falsehoods don't because truths are verified by other truths, whereas falsehoods contradict them. A lie can only be so large before it becomes self-contradictory, the truth is incomprehensibly large yet coherent. If quantum mechanics has problems, as we do more experiments, we'll encounter these problems more and more, until eventually they can no longer be overshadowed. I predict quantum mechanics will never be entirely thrown out, but it will end up as a simplified approximation of a more complex "true" model; which is still taught in schools and used wherever extra accuracy isn't needed, like classical mechanics is today. I think Max Planck's quote matters in practice too. In theory, you can discover a "scientific truth" and be recognized for it, but only long after your death, and only after someone re-discovered it (i.e. you didn't advance scientific knowledge at all). However, most people aren't particularly unique, which means that if you discover something, chances are others have discovered it, or are at least close enough that you can easily convince them. You may not be able to convince the dominant "in-group", but if your idea is obvious enough (which it probably is if it's true and you managed to discover it), you can form an "out-group", which will grow as the idea gets verified (by truths) far more often than contradicted (by lies, because there are less of the latter, since a lie can only be so large without being self-contradictory). Why do science in the first place? If your only goal is to predict something, you're doing it for yourself, so do "Science 1" and listen to others, but only to correct yourself. If your only goal is status, the truth doesn't matter to you, so do "Science 2" and make others happy. If your goal is to further scientific knowledge, I recommend you do both with preference for "Science 1": prioritize being correct, but explain your idea very well and make others happy when possible without sacrificing correctness (diplomacy). It's important to note that when you can't change the majority's factual belief, you should really evaluate your own, because usually in such cases you're the one whose wrong. But otherwise: when you can't change others beliefs, the next best thing is to (as much as possible) not care what they believe, even if they are the majority.

coolhand2120 2y ago

This tracks perfectly with Khun's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The paradigm only shifts when the old guard dies off. Scientific progress has much more to do with ego, institutions, and human nature than scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...

araes 2y ago
Tends to be the issue with a lot of human society. Although, reading through the summary on Wikipedia, I'd suggest that a lot of the "paradigm" shifting often has to do with humanity's monopolistic rent extraction / tragedy of the commons nature. Almost every part of society, including science tends to collapse towards those that have access to ideas and resources, and are placed within society to be able to take advantage of them, and those that are exploited. Even the Nobel Prize was found to mostly favor those who were born to win a Nobel Prize. Best way to win a Nobel Prize? Be born to a wealthy family with a prestigious science background. Those that have access tend to devolve into monopolistic tendencies, exploiting the existing "paradigm" for their own gain, while punishing, excluding, or minimizing those that suggest alternatives that might in some way disrupt their power structure and control. Money, politics, military, industry, and a lot of other parts of society seem to all work about the same. Best way to work at the White House? Be born to a wealthy family with political access. Almost every person who has retrospectively been considered "great" or "revolutionary" centuries or millennia later were punished, excluded, or minimized during their own lifetime, while their contributions were then reevaluated, fought over, fetishized, and collected after their death. Galileo was mentioned elsewhere, relatively well known example, some success and acceptance at the time, mostly condemnation for "vehement suspicion of heresy." Van Gogh's work only began to attract attention in the last year of his life ... right before he shot himself in the chest with a revolver from being so mentally tortured.