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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
