Adverse Reactions to New Ideas
“Theories have four stages of acceptance: 1. This is worthless; 2. This is interesting, but perverse; 3. This is true, but quite unimportant; 4. I always said so.” J. B. S. Haldane (1963)
Thomas Kuhn discussed most of the relevant issues involved in
paradigms and paradigm changes in his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.
The various conflicting motives and justifications for questioning
older ideas or promoting new ideas are no secret given human
psychology and the primary influence of the self-interests of those invested in the status quo.
There are pro forma arguments for preserving the older ideas which
have served us well and are the basis for the status of the
overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and for resisting
the threats to the status quo posed by alternative ideas.
Here is a list some of the standard arguments.
(1) The older ideas have passed nearly all empirical tests and the new
ideas represent a step backwards.
(2) “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. This
reasoning is often applied very selectively and with ever-moving goal
posts for the alternative ideas.
(3) The majority of scientists, and the leaders of the community,
favor the older ideas. [Argument from authority]
(4) The older ideas have much more empirical support and the newer
ideas will never match that.
(5) The new ideas conflict with the older ideas, which are
scientifically “proven”.
(6) The new ideas would upset everything, and no one wants that.
(7) The new ideas are foolish because they conflict with any
rationally based intuition, or common sense. They feel wrong.
The transition from Newtonian physics to the relativistic paradigm
involved all of these arguments, and more.
New ideas must run a very tough gauntlet. Since only a few new ideas
actually represent major advances, this is as it must be. However,
this sensible conservatism can be pushed too far, and sometimes way
too far.