3

In an article in the Guardian about how ideas in nutrition science have advanced and have influenced dietary advice to the public, the authors quote Max Planck as having said, famously:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

They argue that the way nutritional advice to the public has been derived demonstrates the truth of this. But they also argue that there is evidence from analysis of scientific publications after the unexpected deaths of leading researchers supports the idea in a number of fields. The central idea seems to be that powerful people promote ideas compatible with their own and inhibit the publication of ideas that disagree with their ideas.

This is a fruitful topic for philosophical debate about how science advances. But the Guardian article references a scientific paper that claims to be able to show the effect with statistical evidence based on how publications in particular fields change when a leading expert dies unexpectedly. This means the idea is, in principle, addressable with statistical evidence not just philosophising.

So, is there statistical evidence that supports Max Planck's idea that strong and influential scientists inhibit innovation in their fields and that their deaths make their fields more open to new ideas?

matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • 4
    Well Planck is dead, and people still seem to agree with him, so.... :) – Benjol Apr 08 '16 at 13:48
  • I'm a little confused. The quote about "one funeral at a time" is directly from the title of the [paper that the Guardian article cites](http://www.nber.org/papers/w21788). Is it fair to say your question is about the reliability of the results from that paper, rather than directly about Max Planck's quote or anything in the Guardian? (Otherwise, doesn't that article answer your question?) – Oddthinking Apr 08 '16 at 16:28
  • 1
    @Oddthinking The quote is much older than that (being from Max Planck). The question, raised in the article, is whether there is any objective evidence that addresses it. Maybe the referenced paper does that, maybe there is other evidence. I'd like to see whether the paper or any other evidence supports Planck's idea. Addressing the credibility of the paper is part of an answer to that. – matt_black Apr 08 '16 at 16:33
  • Ok, thanks. I guess I am hoping to see an answer that elaborates on the paper, and (if appropriate) explain why it should be accepted. – Oddthinking Apr 08 '16 at 16:44
  • 2
    I believe this is a feature of Thomas Kuhn's argument in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". Kuhn argues that history shows science advancing through three periods : Normal Science, Crisis, and Revolution. The status-quo is maintained during the period of crisis until the supporters of the discredited theory have all died or retired. He gives many examples. –  Apr 08 '16 at 16:47
  • Yet we can find many instances where new science is accepted by large numbers of people in short order. The canonical example might be Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Some accepted it immediately (Huxley's "Why didn't I think of that?" comes to mind), others still reject it even though everyone alive at the time is (almost certainly) dead. – jamesqf Apr 08 '16 at 17:46
  • No, science advances by finding errors in old theories and coming up with new, better ones. *Scientists* on the other hand are only human and tend to suffer from the same cognitive biases that we all do (although they have training and environment that helps to address this), which means *occasionally* you can get scientists that can't accept an old paradigm has been replaced, but it really isn't much of an issue in practice, as the progress science has made over the last few hundred years shows (has e.g. economics made similar progress? The same issues undoubtedly affect economics as well). –  Apr 08 '16 at 19:05
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial I agree that the problem is that scientists are people. But the question is to what extent does that affect the *speed* of progress in some areas of science. That is, apparently, empirically testable from publication data. I'm not sure that it isn't a big issue in practice (as the debate in nutritional advice suggests) but I'm open to evidence. – matt_black Apr 08 '16 at 19:26
  • 1
    @jamesqf It isn't a theory that says all science is held back, just some. Evolution is a bad example as it was widely believed pre-darwin (from some ancient greeks to Darwin's own grandfather). Darwin gave a reasonable *mechanism* which moved the debate forward. But plate tectonics, for example, was proposed 50 years before the geological community took it seriously which suggests a *sometimes* might be the answer. – matt_black Apr 08 '16 at 19:29
  • I don't see how this is appropriate for this site. This is a philosophy question that you would argue about in an introductory philosophy of science course. There is no way that a scientific skepticism site can deal with such a question. I mean, if you want to get started, the classic example is General Relativity. It quickly replaced old physical theories (the proponents of those old theories didn't all die, yet physics quickly adopted the new theory). But Kuhn basically says that this still fits in his framework because the old theories were in clear crises. – KAI Apr 08 '16 at 20:39
  • But really, going through and seeing if everything matches up with Kuhn or somebody like him in an entire philosophical field, not a response on a website. – KAI Apr 08 '16 at 20:41
  • 1
    @kai it is relevant here because the claim suggests the question can be addressed with *evidence*. So it isn't just philosophy. – matt_black Apr 08 '16 at 20:41
  • 1
    @matt_black: Actually plate tectonics wasn't proposed that long ago. What was proposed was Wegener's theory of continental drift, which had the same effects (continents moving about) but no plausible mechanism. Once the mechanism - seafloor spreading - and associated evidence was found in the 1960s, acceptance came rapidly. In this it parallels evolution: many people toyed with the idea, but it was just an idea until Darwin discovered a mechanism. – jamesqf Apr 08 '16 at 21:00
  • @KAI if the available evidence, for example the paper discussed, isn't strong enough evidence to bring this claim beyond being an interesting notion, *that's the answer to the question* – user56reinstatemonica8 Apr 08 '16 at 22:49
  • @matt_black as I said, it isn't much of a problem, consider the advances made in science over the last couple of hundred years and compare that with the rate of progress in e.g. economics, politics, philosophy etc. Picking out individual areas of science that are moving more slowly than others is just cherry picking. BTW Einstein was notably reluctant to take quantum mechanics on board, but I think it is fair to say that he didn't hold back a science much. See I can cherry pick as well. If you are open to evidence, tell me which fields of research have made more progress than science? –  Apr 09 '16 at 13:53
  • "But plate tectonics, for example, was proposed 50 years before the geological community took it seriously which suggests a sometimes might be the answer" that is a bad cherry pick. The geological community were right not to take it seriously until there was a plausible physical mechansim. All Wegener had was a correlation in coastlines. –  Apr 09 '16 at 13:55
  • I don't think the question is easy to answer but on the other hand I think it's a question that could have an answer with empiric evidence. Empiric evidence that doesn't try to focus on anecdotes but that analyses the history systematically. It's also a question that matters for real life decisions about how to structure the scientific system. I'm voting to reopen. – Christian Apr 09 '16 at 17:49
  • It is worth noting that the paper is not peer reviewed, as far as I can see and is just a working paper. It is also worth pointing out that the influx of papers by new researchers following the deaths of eminent scientists are not necessarily ***good*** papers that progress the science more rapidly than would have ocurred if the scientist were still alive and publishing. The media really shouldn't popularise papers that haven't been through peer review like this IMHO. –  Apr 09 '16 at 18:51
  • @DikranMarsupial I was hoping the paper was better than that, but i can't access it to see. I was hoping that those that could would give useful feedback, like you have started to do. Be interesting to see a thorough review. – matt_black Apr 10 '16 at 16:05

0 Answers0