Whose contribution to science is greater: a scholar who makes a revolutionary assumption and does not prove it, or a scholar who proves that later?
The topic of scientific revolutions has been philosophically important since Thomas Kuhn’s account in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962, 1970). Kuhn’s death in 1996 and the fiftieth anniversary of Structure in 2012 have renewed attention to the issues raised by his work. It is controversial whether or not there have been any revolutions in the strictly Kuhnian sense. It is also controversial what exactly a Kuhnian revolution is, or would be. Although talk of revolution is often exaggerated, most analysts agree that there have been transformative scientific developments of various kinds, whether Kuhnian or not. However, there is considerable disagreement about their import. The existence and nature of scientific revolutions is a topic that raises a host of fundamental questions about the sciences and how to interpret them, a topic that intersects most of the major issues that have concerned philosophers of science and their colleagues in neighboring science and technology studies disciplines.
Even if the so-called Scientific Revolution from Copernicus to Newton fits the attractive, Enlightenment picture of the transition from feudalism to modernity (a claim that is also contested), the putative revolutions in mature sciences (e.g., relativity and quantum mechanics) challenge this Enlightenment vision of permanent rational and methodological standards underlying objective sciences and technologies that lead society along the path of progress toward the truth about the world. Today’s scientific realists are the most visible heirs of this picture. Although many philosophers and philosophically or historically reflective scientists had commented on the dramatic developments in twentieth-century physics, it was not until Kuhn that such developments seemed so epistemologically and ontologically damaging as to seriously challenge traditional conceptions of science—and hence our understanding of knowledge acquisition generally.
I would say that the "team" - in this case, works well together and both should have credit.
LS
In my opinion, both have made addition in literature, so be treated equally
Alexis Bouvard pedicted that an unknown planet must have existed, Adams and Leverrier predicted where exactly it should be looked for, then Galle pointed his telescope in that direction and found it - whose contribution was more important? In my opinion there is no question: the true discoverers of Neptune were Bouvard, Adams and Leverrier! Similar was the sequence of prediction - search - finding ("proof") of practically any major (and overwhelming majority of minor...) step in scientific progress, from spherical shape of the Earth to black holes, gravitational waves and Standard Model of the Universe on the one hand and sibling species or rules of insular biogeography on the other! The "proof" is important, but only as "final polishing" of the previously made discovery!
I totally agree with Dr. Roman Bohdan Hołyński that evidence is important, but only as a" final polish of an earlier discovery because much of the scientific evidence had discoveries or hypotheses that had been previously developed and served as the basis on which they later relied to prove them.
Dear Dragoljub Šarović
Re: " ... a scholar who makes a revolutionary assumption and does not prove it, or a scholar who proves that later? "
(1) It depends on HOW the assumption was generated : the former is good if it's from good, clear, replicable observations, WITH very high inter-observer reliabilites _AND__ at least it has such overt observables for its clear groundings or clear beginnings (researchers themselves should define nothing -- in a VERY REAL SENSE) ___OR___ otherwise, not good (so: the latter).
(2) it depends on whether all clearly related hypotheses are testable (verifiable & falsifiable) _OR_ NOT.
These are the basic MUSTS for any science field, including aspiring "social 'sciences'" -- you can look and think as long as you can and you cannot find otherwise (I have put my fortunes (literally) for YEARS "on the line" with this view). These are NOT such difficult questions: WHY?: we cannot START WITH ASSAILABLE assumptions (PERIOD) -- so, do you want to "start" or not? ("come on" 'folks'; think this one out). Such uncertainty may be some professors', etc. stock-in-trade, but not mine. Believing other than what I have outlined is essentially equivalent to the view of positions as NOTHING BUT JOBS ("slots")(and this attitude (against my view) and the latter attitude go hand-in-hand). I truly mean no offense; these are my established views and, as you can see (at least in-part), views easily shown true (see below).
[ Try my writings out for possible clear examples. Please. A "like" (here, a Recommendation) for me sometimes would be nice too. I am sorry that many RG readers like only short answers (or non-answers); too BAD ! ]
Inclination of science starts from the school days & after secondary & college education interest gets more widen . Such student for their post graduation study take kin interest in the science & because of their study & knowledge they consider proficient & call an respected as a scholar . Knowledge is wide there is no end of it & as such in a certain stage of scientist they may not implement their subjective knowledge in laboratory or any subjective result but this may come out due to his all the time endorsement in study may bring the result .
This is my personal opinion
Actually, this is a chicken or egg question. Science needs creative ideas that can be proved and, perhaps most of all, applied within research or industry. Clearly, the idea was first in this case.
LS
Both are important because without the first assumption the breakthrough later would not have been possible.
Hunches, intuition and subsequent innovation are rare. This is what changes the world.
An example: Colin Renfrew (1987) suggested that the Indo European languages originated in Anatolia and came to Europe with the first farmers. This was generally or largely dismissed. We now believe that Indo-European did not originate in Anatolia but came into Europe with Near Eastern farmers exterminating the hunter/gatherer group there. Renfrew was right, if not completely right. The others were wrong, almost completely wrong.
Renfrew's hunch/qualified hunch/intuition was right.
Dear Dr. Dragoljub Šarović , This is a genuine and thought provoking question.
My take on this:
Both are important/ Both are Great Scientists
1. The First Scientist - comes out with hypothesis/assumption - he may not have either tools, (suitable situation - as given in Example-2) or technology during his times to prove his theory/concept.
2. (Later) The other researcher motivated by that work - goes further to prove it.
Example 1:
Ramanujan, one of the Greatest Mathematician has made such contributions - His theorems are proven (100 years later) by other mathematicians (now).
Two mathematicians of Emory University, Ken Ono and Sarah Trebat-Leder, have recently made a fascinating discovery within its yellowed pages. It shows that Ramanujan was further ahead of his time than anyone had expected
Source: https://plus.maths.org/content/ramanujan
Note: Anybody in the mathematics or related filed - I humbly request to this link or any other relevant sources to know more about Shri. Ramanujan.
Example 2:
In 1915, Albert Einstein put forth a new alternative theory of gravity: General Relativity. The way to test it against Newton's theory was to wait for a total solar eclipse. 100 years ago today, Einstein was proven right.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/29/this-is-how-100-years-ago-a-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-right-and-newton-wrong/?sh=7f4f6a041610
In a nutshell, Every research is important; Original Assumption, (later) Proven right or Proven wrong.
Warm regards Yoganandan G
We cannot truly assess the contribution of scientists. All discoveries (especially if they run counter to generally accepted ideas) can remain unrecognized for many years. But if the evidence base has been collected by other scientists, then it is probably correct to mention all the scientists who played their role in the new theory, position, etc.
Regards, Sergey
Both of them r important to add knowledge &experience for whole studies whether results ,findings the same with efforts&conjectures.
evidence is important, but only as a" final polish of an earlier discovery because much of the scientific evidence had discoveries or hypotheses that had been previously developed and served as the basis on which they later relied to prove them. Both of them r important to add knowledge &experience for whole studies whether results ,findings the same with efforts&conjectures.
I want to concur with all those who posits that both these individuals are important in their own rights. An idea must be conceiptualised and doing this gives a systematic way of achieving it and eventually its realisation.
two types of scientists are important and their collaboration is especially valuable . The first is valuable for original ideas and non-standard thinking. The second is the ability to describe an idea and explain it.
Dear Olena Pozniakova
... Re: what you address . Original ideas AND ability to "describe and explain" should go together (in fact, it is dangerous if they do not -- DO NOT LET ANY OTHERS DO THE THINKING FOR YOU). Best Regards
Dear Maria S. Papadopoulou
... Re: rebut to what you said about a one-man job: Not a one-man job, UNLESS IT IS.
Brad: I think you have somewhat misinterpreted Olena’s comment: there are indeed some scientists of exceptionally efficient intuition, able to find novel ideas and/or formulate correct hypothesis long before the exact data sufficient to formally “prove” has been accumulated, but lacking motivation and endurance needed to search for “proofs” [“eminent mathematician, Solomon Lefschetz, disdained those who wasted much time to exactly prove what for him was evident. He is said to have never produced a correct proof , but have never published a false result, either” – Wróblewski 2005]; on the other hand, there are others working very precisely and systematically, who never dare to publish any idea until every point and comma has been “rigorously proven”. As an instructive example let’s me quote the model of DNA structure, built by Watson and Crick as a ”puzzle composition” of rods and spherules and immediately published in Nature, whereas Rosalind Franklin, whose studies had suggested them how these rods and spherules should be connected, obstinately searched for “decisive proofs”. “Their [Watson & Crick’s on the structure of DNA] paper published in „Nature” ... was not based on any experiment, was purely speculative ... knowing editorial committees of international journals, nowadays such work would have never appeared either in ‘Nature’ or in ‘Science’” (Żylicz 2006), but nevertheless Watson and Crick became Nobel Prize winners while Rosalind Franklin has remained “Dark Lady of DNA”!
Dear Roman Bohdan Hołyński
It is not infrequently that people are part correct (and even very notably and importantly part correct). I like to make what is/are the important point(s) for our time. I DO regret any possible offense to Olena (truly). [( I often sincerely live with such regrets, but still am doing my best. )]
Proofs only occur in mathematics. Outside of mathematics, theories aren't proved, only confirmed or corroborated. And of course later developments will lead to disconfirmations or failures of generalizability or scope and hopefully better theories; that's how science proceeds. With "proof of concept", on the other hand, the contribution may be shared, though usually the question of "more or less or equal" has no determinable answer.
Regarding that famous conjecture, I vote for Wiles not Fermat.
Dragoljub Šarović
Dear Professor,
Thank you for such a wonderful question.
With 33 replies, I am sure the matter stands settled here. Still, can't control myself from adding a reply to this question.
There was a great man who once said that imagination is more important than knowledge. He was Albert Einstein. Its imagination that helps a scholar to make a revolutionary assumption. That scholar may not have the chance or time to prove it. May be she/ he was born in a wrong period. But that assumption will ignite the minds of others. And, another scholar may prove that. The root/ source is more important. The scholar who was the "Mother" and gave birth to the revolutionary assumption is the main person behind the idea, the theory, the concepts, the science.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Dear Karl Pfeifer
I do take your points; their validly is shown with much of the broad history of much science / many sciences. But, I also believe that if, with a very clear observational-type (naturalistic study) approach to understanding and studying (that yielding more understanding), a theory may essentially be self-correcting. Such is possible and works when there is a commitment so that essentially all that's important can/will be seen and re-seen along with looking for more (or closer) and seeing more, but all using the same basic, very high quality, principled observations approach. Now, an EXAMPLE (with more exposition of the characteristics of such a theory): Classical ethology progressed and then progressed again and again with better observations -- and, at times, the major importance of some most-excellent observational findings are enough to shift the perspective and change overall understanding in big ways, but it is the same basic theory (at "it's heart" and for-real) because of the centrality of continuing using necessary core observational methods (AND, committed and recommitted to all the findings (observations from the past are still part of it all)). Everything done, past and presently, is all there and good for something. In such a given area, steady progression of understanding can go on and on (as indicated) and that way THE theory, with its findings, becomes better and better. What we have here is a single/very-basically-same-type of theory (and one CAN say: the same 1 theory), always the same in being always and throughout thoroughly well grounded -- the strictest empiricism so every CONCEPT is clearly founded: EVERYTHING stemming from DIRECTLY-SEEN phenomenology at least at its inception or key beginning. In other words, the entire conceptual edifice is clearly tied to the DIRECT OBSERVATIONS OF SOME MAJOR OVERT and DETERMINING phenomenology . AND, this way: Everything is/becomes defined by the organism ITSELF (all is OF the Subject). With such an organismic, principled theory one is progressing and becoming better just embracing more and more -- with the good naturalistic study to simply progress or to evolve. So, here, in ethology (and likely in some other biology), a central theory makes all progress and, even with big shifts in understanding, the change is of an evolutionary nature AND CORE THEORY, APPROACH, PRINCIPLES, AND CORE FINDINGS ALL REMAIN.
[ I, at points, in my essays here on RG, I further and better indicate the ethology example. ]
Karl: "I vote for Wiles not Fermat" - without Fermat, there would be no Wiles...
Roman Bohdan Hołyński RE: "without Fermat, there would be no Wiles..."
Very doubtful. Diophantine equations were of interest long before Fermat, so others would eventually have wondered about the possibility of the statement being true (and for all we know, maybe some earlier mathematicians did). Fermat's contribution was his unsubstantiated claim to have a proof that he had no room to write down. That claim may have motivated many people to seek a proof, but there is no reason to believe that people could not have been motivated by something else in the absence of Fermat's claim. You didn't need someone asserting that he already had a proof.
It is like saying, who's contribution is greater, one who started the fire or one who used it to cook food? Both have comparable contributions, if the fire hadn't been started cooking would not have been possible, again without having been put to use, fire by itself would not have been able to satisfy hunger.
To give an idea, is a thing of worth. But it's worth becomes many times more when the idea gain it's actual existence.
As a researcher , i feel , it is more imprtant to one who brings out some hypothesis , off course based on science . Science starts with a fiction and terminates into facts....
As a student of science, I believe that the contributions of both scholars are greater and play a vital role to add knowledge or solve a scientific problem.
evidence is important, but only as a" final polish of an earlier discovery because much of the scientific evidence had discoveries or hypotheses that had been previously developed and served as the basis on which they later relied to prove them. Both of them r important to add knowledge &experience for whole studies whether results ,findings the same with efforts&conjectures.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whose_contribution_to_science_is_greater_a_scholar_who_makes_a_revolutionary_assumption_and_does_not_prove_it_or_a_scholar_who_proves_that_later
Dear sir,
Both scholars are great, but without proving the assumption or theory or hypothesis, the assumption will lose its value, one is the founder and another is sustainer. So bith are greater but without the prover the soul of the theory or the assumption will lose, so prover is greater.
Dear Pr Dragoljub Šarović,
An innovative hypothesis could be at the origin of several interesting projects, which can significantly advance science, and have later a positive impact on a socio-economic level. Indeed, materializing an hypothesis is very difficult and it requires a lot of patience and hard work which may / or not be successful at the end.
Best wishes,
Sabri
The idea is usually first - science then proves it right or wrong with the means that are available. That does not mean that the idea was wrong in time. For example, 60 or so years ago we said that what goes up - must come down; today we know that this is not always true.
Lou
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whose_contribution_to_science_is_greater_a_scholar_who_makes_a_revolutionary_assumption_and_does_not_prove_it_or_a_scholar_who_proves_that_later
In my opinion, both works can and are essential and will make tremendous and relevant contributions to science in the future.
I think the scholar who makes revolutionary assumption is greater than who's proving it
I agree with colleagues who argue that scholars who make revolutionary assumptions make a greater contribution to science. For example, almost all of Tesla's assumptions were later taken over by many other scholars later.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing