Section XII: Resistance to New Ideas, from "Is Space the Only Substance in the Universe?"

 

XII.                   RESISTANCE TO NEW IDEAS, ESPECIALLY IN PHYSICS

“Nothing More Difficult…More Perilous…More Uncertain in its Success, Than to Take the Lead in the Introduction of a New Order of Things”   

Before concluding, I shall discuss why it is so difficult to obtain recognition for important and fundamental new ideas in physics and related sciences. This can help explain why a model like the one to be presented here has not already been proposed long ago by other scientists, let alone been adopted, despite its simplicity and potential usefulness. It also predicts why the new model is likely to elicit strong opposition if it attracts the attention I hope for from physical scientists.

            Over recent decades, some scientists not classically trained in physics have attempted to create new theories of physics or cosmology. So far, none of these alternative theories have fully panned out, which has reinforced the pre-existing attitude that anyone trying to challenge orthodoxy is a crackpot or a quack. Physicists including cosmologists, and astronomers as well, have a reputation for dogmatism resembling religious orthodoxy, and for attacking anyone with an unorthodox idea (Corredoira & Perelman 2008; Loeb 2021). Anyone who proposes an alternative theory can expect not only objections to the theory but personal vilification as well.  Of course, to be worthy of consideration, new theories should be grounded in science, and the mathematics should be sound.  It is appropriate to challenge new theories on the basis of their substance, but not to automatically reject them and to insult their authors ad hominem simply for their innovation.  

            It might be more appropriate for the leaders in these disciplines, and the decision-makers at sources of research funding, journals and academia, to frankly admit that intolerant orthodoxy in the face of such a chaotic state of current theory makes little sense. They might better appeal for new proposals for research and theory from both inside and outside of the disciplines in developing new concepts for the entire field. Most such proposals would probably fail, but a few might prove valuable, including what I have presented here.

            Machiavelli (1513) had the insight to recognize the following (highlighting added):

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. (Chapter VI)

            Before becoming aware of Machiavelli's comment, the present author developed a similar proposition, called the Hattis Hypothesis and its corollary.

Hattis Hypothesis: The more important and critical to future progress a new idea is, the more vigorously it will be opposed by the authorities of the field in question.

Hattis Corollary: The more training and experience possessed by specialists in the field, the more difficult it can be for them to develop and promote such valuable new ideas.

            That is because the rigidity and dogmatism of graduate training that shapes specialist thinking in scientific fields impose obstacles to veering from orthodoxy. Academic training tends to organize one’s thinking to interpret new information in relation to a pre-programmed framework. Anything that clashes with how one’s thoughts are thus organized produces cognitive dissonance.  Companario and Martin (2004) have in fact noted that graduate training in physics screens out most of those who question orthodoxy, and that even after commitment to basic principles of the field, it is only possible to question prevailing ideas within “implicit limits.”  

            Therefore, sometimes the people who are best able to develop such ideas may tend to come from outside or on the margins of the establishment of the specialty in question. If so, their lack of credentials within that specialty will feed into the opposition and make it even stronger.

            Haldane (1963) proposed the following stages of acceptance of a new idea:

I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four stages:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so.

Getting Around Intellectual Inertia

Resistance to new ideas is thus deeply rooted in human nature and academic structure, and has some parallels to inertia in physics. Despite this, physics theory has evolved over the centuries. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein overcame resistance and eventually overthrew systems that existed before them by demonstrating the usefulness of their new concepts. Hubble’s redshift observations provided incontrovertible evidence that the universe is expanding. Today, there are multiple competing physics theories, including those on quantum fields and “Big Bounce” already discussed. Scientists with formal training in physics, but who also have cross-disciplinary training and are employed in other fields (or are retired) may have the flexibility, perspectives, and financial and reputational independence to be in the best position to think beyond current dogmas. Generally, however, only if those physicists have very well-established reputations have they been able to publish such ideas, and newcomers or outsiders are as a rule frozen out. 

            Some areas of physics, such as “dark energy” and “dark matter,” lack accepted theories altogether. Since in such cases there is no orthodoxy, they should be wide open for new ideas. Despite professional risk, some courageous, less established physicists are once again proposing new, alternative theories to account for some of the issues, and even giving each other advice on how to do so successfully (Companario & Martin 2004; Hossenfelder S. 2017).  Promising potential voices for innovation should be encouraged and supported.