Consider the following quotation from Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics.
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.
Max Planck (1858 - 1947)
It is worth mentioning that Einstein himself did not accept the random nature of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, by means of the well known Bell's theorem it was proved that Einstein was wrong.
The answer is "yes"—the scientific community is open to accept new and innovative ideas—if your ideas do not challenge the status quo.
The answer is "yes" if the ideas abide by the rules of the game (for example, physical theories MUST have math or your ideas are ad hoc).
The answer is "yes" if you don't slaughter any sacred cows (Read: Definitively solve fundamental problems and step on the toes of people whose livelihoods is studying those problems).
The answer is "yes" if your ideas are falsifiable and make "predictions"—meaning that scientists don't want the Truth; don't want the scientific search to end; don't want the "tested" idea. The tested idea being one that renders all future tests unnecessary because all of the requisite tests have already been done.
And, to a lesser extent, the answer is "yes" if you have colleagues that will promote your ideas:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems
and getting science magazines to promote it, too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems
even when those ideas are unpublished.
The answer is "yes"—the scientific community is open to accept new and innovative ideas—if your ideas do not challenge the status quo.
The answer is "yes" if the ideas abide by the rules of the game (for example, physical theories MUST have math or your ideas are ad hoc).
The answer is "yes" if you don't slaughter any sacred cows (Read: Definitively solve fundamental problems and step on the toes of people whose livelihoods is studying those problems).
The answer is "yes" if your ideas are falsifiable and make "predictions"—meaning that scientists don't want the Truth; don't want the scientific search to end; don't want the "tested" idea. The tested idea being one that renders all future tests unnecessary because all of the requisite tests have already been done.
And, to a lesser extent, the answer is "yes" if you have colleagues that will promote your ideas:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems
and getting science magazines to promote it, too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems
even when those ideas are unpublished.
Dear Erik, I do not agree with the meaning you give to the point N°4. The answer is "yes" if your ideas are falsifiable and make "predictions". However, that does not mean necessarily that scientists don't want the Truth.
The conflict in science, that would disallow any new and innovative contribution (e.g., order over chaos), between QM (entanglement) and Relativity (locality; frames of reference) ignores differences in scale between the two while erroneously maintaining the scale of the observer at the 'classical' physics level. The scientific community has diverged from Einstein's riding alongside a light wave (which if taken to its logical conclusion, would resolve the conflict) and by force of this majority even shook Albert from those roots. However, I am certain he has figured this out by now, and thankfully, as Juan aptly quotes Max Planck: "What does happen is that...opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research