Read on Twitter
A reflection from the history of science.
Scientific controversies of the past are written up in textbooks with one side "winning" once experimental evidence becomes overwhelming.
Three things glossed: a) How unpleasant it is b) How long it takes c) What happens to "losers" (1/7)
Scientific controversies of the past are written up in textbooks with one side "winning" once experimental evidence becomes overwhelming.
Three things glossed: a) How unpleasant it is b) How long it takes c) What happens to "losers" (1/7)
First, it gets really, really nasty. Newton crushed opponents by manipulating committees in the Royal Society, while claiming to enjoy breaking hearts of rivals. Insults are hurled, careers are ruined. Scientists act like spoiled children (2/7) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-trade-insults-over-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-me-study-slk0cv5lj
And science takes *ages* to agree. At the time, William Harvey was judged the most fortunate of scientists; his work on the circulation of blood was accepted within his lifetime.
Even today, decades are still the norm - witness the gap between Nobel-winning work and the award.
Even today, decades are still the norm - witness the gap between Nobel-winning work and the award.
It is also striking to see the rarity with which those on the "losing" side accept defeat. It does happen, but it is far more common that they keep on going: promoting an alternative evidence base, and finding reasons for doubt in experiments that most see as decisive.
Examples abound: Macquer and Priestly's defense of phlogiston, Herbert Dingle holding out on Special Relativity. The link is to a fabulous profile of the two Burbidges: immensely influential and accomplished astronomers, working to disprove the Big Bang. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/two-against-the-big-bang
"Losers" of scientific disputes usually do not concede. Instead, they get stuck proving their case, fall behind, are unable to attract students to work with them, and fade into irrelevance.
The brutal version is due to Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time."
(6/7)
The brutal version is due to Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time."
(6/7)
So, if you're looking at the current controversies on coronavirus, are appalled at the vile behaviour of certain actors, you're thinking surely a year is enough to have reached consensensus, or wondering when the most entrenched will ever concede ... this is *normal*. (7/ends)
