Tuesday, January 1, 2013

2. Acceptance and Opposition




" … 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.