" … arguments which have led up to the theory and the whole state of mind of most physicists with regard to it may someday become one of the puzzles of history."
-- P W Bridgman, Nobel Laureate
Following Bridgman’s assertion, that puzzle is precisely the
one we are trying to solve. In the previous article it was suggested that
logically, one need not, and even cannot, DISPROVE an existing worldview before
going to the next stage of concepts. It was also noticed that there are
generally some “small” discrepancies which start to be observed, which in
retrospect are seen to have called for a wholesale revision of concepts. An
analysis of a reason for this is seen to be that the coupling of mathematics to
reality, or our concepts to reality, determines the need for the revision. We
see the same things in a different way.
Let us now continue to examine this process a bit more
closely. For this, we need to observe the numerous tales of opposition presented
to EVERY new concept that has come about in scientific circles, even to those
which have been shown to represent reality correctly. We are not here speaking
of extensions of existing scientific view points, but those which question
their foundations. What prevented a scientist, or an investigator, from
accepting the idea that his current view of the world is incomplete, and more
importantly, in accepting the next worldview?
Let us consider the example of Alfred Wegener, who in the
relatively recent 1940’s, put forward his idea, among other things, that South
America and Africa were at one point a single landmass, which drifted apart
with time. Frankly speaking, the observation that the two continents fit
together is easily obvious to anyone who has the capacity to observe a map, and
it follows that a way to accomplish that has to be present. Nevertheless, the
idea went through a tremendous amount of opposition, especially with the
opposition of the expert of the day (Simpson) leading the way. It was insisted
that the continents could not have been together; because there was no way that
they could have moved. It took twenty years’ time for the data to finally
override these oppositions.
It is interesting to note that around the same time that the
quantum hypothesis was being examined in physics, the corresponding
“quantization of inheritance” i.e. Mendel’s work with relation to genetics was
being re-discovered after nearly half a century of their formulation. Earlier
formulations supposed that inheritance was a “continuous blend” of
characteristics, and Mendel’s work showed that the inheritance was based on
specific units. And this theory required 50 years for its acceptance. Why does
it take that long? If that were to hold true today, it is likely that we are
also in the “waiting period” of some such future revelation that is already
among us. Do we just have to play the waiting game till the time is right?
One common factor that turns out with respect to opposition
to novel ideas is that they are mostly opinions of the scientists of the time.
In other words, there is a hesitation, or reluctance, to readjust one’s
conceptual structure. Imagine that you have worked for your entire career under
the assumption that the Earth is flat. Would you welcome the suggestion that
the Earth was round, when you are past your prime? Herein something turns up in
our analysis for the first time… the subjective and personal elements which
come up due to the fact that science is, after all, done by scientists.
Hesitation, opposition, acceptance, support, “small” discrepancies,
interpretations… these terms point at the fact that to understand why science
gets held up in its tracks, we must understand scientists themselves, or more
generally: human perception, especially as regards to opinions. It is indeed
weird, that with science having to be objective, we are led by its very
examination straight to an examination of human understanding and thought
processes – the human element.
At this point we must follow a parallel thread, as to how
much of mathematical development of a theory we must carry out by putting our
perceptions “on hold”. It is observed
that a lot of abstract mathematics are possible, some of which our perceptions
cannot access. Which one are we to follow? Here there are two possibilities
with regard to the situation the mathematics is pointing towards:
- It is beyond our perception at the moment, but is real nonetheless.
- Our correlation of mathematics with reality is erroneous.
To decide between the two, what is required is experiential
knowledge. But we have seen earlier, that even experiential knowledge can be
ignored, during the sequence of development of scientific theories, and this
ignorance, or refusal to acknowledge, once more ties up with the human element,
labeled commonly as “human error”. When human error leads one to make a mistake
in reading 1.6 as 1.8, it can be accounted for. But if human error is tied up
with the very process of scientific understanding, then one has to account for
it, and understand it.
To summarize, it is seen that in order to determine which
theory is correct and why delays are seen in “accepting” a new idea, it is
necessary to examine the human interaction with scientific data. Seeing that
the data is generally already available for making the shift to a new
perspective, it is not logical to merely allow large periods of time to pass in
order to allow new concepts in thinking to sink in, but instead to ask “Why did
people miss this fact before this time? What caused them to refuse to take it
into account, and downright deny its existence?” Besides, we might very easily
miss something that is staring us in the face, during this wait. Hence, the
human participation is seen to be vital and cannot be ignored.
The next article will examine the relation between the rich
field of human experiences and their association with scientific theories, in
order to find some tell-tale signs of those delays in acceptance, and to see if
they can be overcome.
