CLOSEMINDED
GOOD STUFF
NEW STUFF
SEARCH








 
CONVENTIONAL VERSUS MAVERICK SCIENCE            (c)1996 William J. Beaty
Who's Right?

Skeptic versus True Believer
Neophobe versus Neophile (thanks Chris!)
Conservative versus fringe

In attempting to understand the continuing fight between fringe and
mainstream science, I began compiling a list of arguments which each side
has used against the other.  I quickly became aware that neither side was
ahead, and that the real issue was not about who is right.  Instead the
issue involves two incompatible ways of seeing the world and the
competition between the two. 

On one side we have the conventional mainstream, composed of people who
tend to build one small discovery upon another, who tend to arrive at
consensus views and think alike, and tend to follow the herd and avoid
radical changes. They make progress through numerous small, safe advances
which add up to large success.

On the other side we have the Mavericks, composed of people who tend to
make upsetting, earthshaking discoveries, who exhibit a wide variety of
incompatible viewpoints, who possess extreme amounts of creativity and who
indulge in unconventional ideas for their own sake.  They make progress
through following numerous dead ends but occasionally hitting on a wildly
successful discovery.  They gamble on longshots and occasionally win big. 

The fight between these two factions is marked by intolerance of each for
the other.  Each side insists that theirs is the only proper way to act,
and believe that there is something deficient with the other side. 
Whenever one side comes to power, it attempts to suppress the other side
and keep it at bay as long as possible.  When the neophiles get in
control, everything goes into upheaval, and the "normals" are seen as dull
plodders who have no dreams and make no progress.  When the neophobes 
take over, things become safe and stable, science is seen as nearly
complete, and the "weirdoes" are seen as threateningly uncontrolled and
irrational wasters of funding.


The list:

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers use their knowledge of current theory to
|	ferret out the faults in proposed theories.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers use their knowledge of current theory to
|	create a limited view of reality, then they label reports and
|	observations "impossible" or "irrational" if they threaten to
|	upset this limited worldview.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Maverick researchers discover patterns which have gone long
|	unnoticed by the mainstream.
|
| CON	Maverick researchers wrongly ascribe importance to random
|	coincidences, see patterns which do not exist, and then build
|	faulty theories based on illusion and fantasy.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers use their experience and expertise to
|	predict fruitful directions for future research.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers use reputation and image of authority to
|	mask such things as bias against particular fields, emotion-based
|	attempts to suppress the work of mavericks, and fear that their
|	lifetime's work may be misguided.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Mavericks draw attention to widespread attitudes of close- 
|	mindedness which stand in the way of progress.
|
| CON	Mavericks hide their failures by claiming that their ideas are
|	being suppressed.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers refuse to accept theories which have not
|	yet been tested.
| 
| CON	Conventional researchers pre-judge the worth of unexplored areas
|	rather than conducting preliminary investigations.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Maverick researchers reveal chinks in mature fields which uncover
|	fruitful new areas for investigation.
|
| CON	Maverick researchers unnecessarily spread uncertainty, and cause
|	well-verified knowledge to appear questionable.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers maintain a skeptical attitude which
|	requires that knowledge be tested before it is accepted.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers maintain a disbelieving attitude and
|	refuse to accept certain conclusions regardless of the strength of
|	the evidence.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Maverick researchers solidify current knowledge by testing 
|	theories which might not have been well-verified.
|
| CON	Maverick researchers waste time and funding by pursuing paths
|	that have repeatedly been shown to be dead ends.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO 	Conventional researchers maintain high standards for the testing
|	of new theories.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers suppress maverick ideas by forever
|	demanding more and more stringent tests.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Maverick researchers provisionally accept unconventional theories
|	in order that they may test them.
|
| CON 	Maverick researchers accept strange theories based on little or no
|	evidence.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers refuse to accept theories which have not 
|	been tested.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers refuse to lower themselves by devoting
|	any time or funding to the testing of maverick theories which
|	they have prejudged as false.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers forge solid links between individual
|	facts and observations, which creates a strong self-consistent
|	web of conceptual knowledge.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers indulge in herd-mind behavior and
|	mistakenly rely on majority rule, believing that certain facts
|	are well supported by evidence when they really are just
|	widely believed by collegues.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Maverick researchers discover holes in current knowledge by
| 	questioning widely held assumptions and by seeing old knowledge
|	with new eyes.
|
| CON	Maverick researchers waste everyone's time by "reinventing the
|	wheel," by exploring a field without first reviewing the work
|	done by others in that field.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers create progress by building one
|	discovery upon another in a sensible fashion.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers inhibit progress by spreading the myth
|	that science only advances in a uniform rational manner, and that 
|	there are no revolutions, upheavals, creative leaps, "rewriting
|	all of physics," etc.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Maverick researchers are experts at precipitating Kuhn-ian
|	paradigm shifts, without which science would stagnate.
|
| CON	Maverick researchers are not good at "mopping up," at in-depth
|	investigation of the less than revolutionary details, without 
|       which science would have only a shallow and scattered structure.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers use funding efficiently by directing it
|	only towards research which has a large probability of creating
|	progress.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers use their power to preserve the status
|	quo by refusing to support longshot research which may precipitate
|	revolutions and open up new fields, but which has a low
|	probability of success.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| PRO	Conventional researchers are expert at organizing, writing
|	textbooks, and standardizing methods of investigation and
|	distribution of funding.
|
| CON	Conventional researchers inject their worldview into science
|	organizations, textbooks, and methods of investigation.  The
|	conservative worldview becomes the Mainstream, while the maverick
|	philosophy is called irrational and unscientific, maverick
|	students are convinced to avoid the sciences, and selective
|	funding is use to shove maverick research into a small dark 
|	corner out of sight.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------


 




http://amasci.com/freenrg/mavskep1.html
Created and maintained by Bill Beaty. Mail me at: .
View My Stats