Saturday, September 7, 2013
On the Overrated Nature of Consensus in Science
In 1665 Sir Isaac Newton went into isolation to avoid contracting the plague which was then running rampant in England. During that year AND BY HIMSELF, Mr. Newton invented integral and differential calculus, discovered the laws of universal gravitation and motion, and set the field of optics on a brand new course. Luckily for him, the consensus back then was ultimately overcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"..and by himself.." Newton admitted that he 'stood on the shoulders of giants", Gallileo,
Kepler, Descartes, Bacon, etc.
Halley, Hooke, Liebniz and other
contemporaries corresponded with
Newton and had a general understanding of the problems and solutions. The concept of idea,
hypothesis, theory, law was rudimentary at the time (as was their understanding of chemistry-
fumbling alchemists!) Science is
an accumulation of building blocks and Newton had some huge ones. As for consensus, he and Leibniz fought for years about calculus:
they both had it right of course.
We just have a different perspective here. I agree with with Michael Crichton and think that most of the great scientific breakthroughs have been a departure from consensus. It took 50 years for the establishment to accept germ theory and the continental drift and more recently it took over 20 years for the establishment to change from stress causing stomach ulcers to viruses causing them. And of course there was Copernicus.
Not sure about viruses causing ulcers. Bacteria sure does: I
had the H. Pylori a few years back.
Virus causes warts (HPV human papilloma virus and cold sores
HSV (herpex simplex virus). The
ulcer/H. Pylori thing presents questions as well: it is a common
stomach resident, but only attacks
relatively rarely..stress? ..immune problem?
IMO, the next breakthroughs will be
in the areas of brain chemistry, etc..not necessarily a departure from consensus, but perhaps a turn
built on accretion of current testing, data and hypotheses.
Not that familiar with Crichton, but he was brilliant and never at home with the status quo of several science/medical fields.
There is a difference between the consensus on the interpretation of existing data, and the development of a new theory that presents a new way of doing things.
I stand corrected. Bacteria is obviously the correct answer.
It also helps if people use the same data, Jerry. Like on climate change (what was once called global warming), for instance, I prefer to use the satellite and radiosonde balloon temperature readings as opposed to fellows like James Hansen who seemingly like to use the surface temperature readings instead.
If you like Crichton's views, you might enjoy Mario Livio's book
'Brilliant Blunders'.
Post a Comment