Science Advances by Death?

[gcol]

Excerpts from a small piece by columnist Anjana Ahuja in The Times, Dec. 31st:

 

...."News of a credible, if somewhat cheerless, theory about how science advances. It is not through reason and rational debate that it creeps forward, but by death. Which, when you think about it, is rather obvious:youthful ideas march into established territory, to the dismay of the old guard. Rarely do the guardians of the status quo convert: they go to their graves sticking stubbornly to their beliefs.Only in their absence can fresh ideas bloom and take hold."

 

This hypothesis from David Weintraub "Is Pluto a planet?", and David Schuster, reviewer, Sky And Telescope. There's more: ......."Would Galileo's inquisitors have later re-read his work, reconsidered and said "oh, of course, now I get it." Fat chance.

 

She concludes with: "Thank goodness Einstein and Newton were separated by two centuries: otherwise who would have believed the crazy ideas of a self-taught patent clerk over those of a knighted genius, even though Einstein was right?"

 

I think there is a grain of truth in there somewhere, something between new ideas require new generations, and eternal life is synonymous with stagnation.

[Sisyphus]

I've thought about that myself, in the context of trying to imagine what life would be like if we "cured" old age. (I can't, BTW. Our whole society is built on the fact that people grow old and die.) Not just with scientific ideas but with social ones, as well. If you plucked people out of various cultures and eras and showed them the modern world, almost all of them would be horrified, albeit for a whole range of different reasons. Or in politics: the main draw of Barak Obama is that he is NOT a baby boomer. Why? Because baby boomers are still fighting the battles of their youth - the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, etc.

 

Actually, science is one area where you would expect this not to be the case. It is, after all, a system with built in methods of improving itself. And yet sadly, it doesn't seem to be immune, either. I once had the great privilege of talking with Freeman Dyson, a very respected and very old physicist, about essentially this very subject. He recalled being a young man talking with the ridiculously revered Einstein, and how sad it was that he just couldn't accept the ideas of quantum mechanics that the young guard were pushing forward. Now, of course, the roles are reversed, and Dyson thinks that most of the ideas that excite young physicists are foolish dead-ends.

[KrisSam]

thats an interesting concept. ive never really thought about it much, but it makes perfect sense. ive used this theory to explain things like the music industry and film industry. the dinosaurs need to go before new ideas can thrive.

[Phi for All]

When your work passes peer-review in *your* day and becomes theory I can imagine it's difficult when years later someone new comes along and says, Yeah, but...". But Sisyphus is right, you'd expect science to be able to recognize the insights that advancements over time can lend.

"Would Galileo's inquisitors have later re-read his work, reconsidered and said "oh, of course, now I get it." Fat chance.

 

She concludes with: "Thank goodness Einstein and Newton were separated by two centuries: otherwise who would have believed the crazy ideas of a self-taught patent clerk over those of a knighted genius, even though Einstein was right?"

Of course Galileo's *inquisitors* would never have reconsidered. That wasn't their job and neither were they scientists.

 

I think the more intriguing question would be this: What would old Newton have said to young Einstein if the two could have sat down for a spot?

[gcol]

That is not, to me, an intriguing question because it is a rather traditional philosophical and literary ploy, written usually by the old guy with the young guy sitting in awe and utter respect at at his feet and receiving words of ancient wisdom with gratitude. The hypothesis I presented was intended to illustrate rather the opposite, with the youth rather saying "thanks for the memories, grandad, move over, it's my turn now". I am a greybeard grandfather, and if even I can visualise the reality, there is hope for you all.

The young need to learn a little patience. Difficult, I know, but the old order will pass.

[Phi for All]

That is not, to me, an intriguing question because it is a rather traditional philosophical and literary ploy, written usually by the old guy with the young guy sitting in awe and utter respect at at his feet and receiving words of ancient wisdom with gratitude.

Put that way, it *is* uninteresting. Leave it to some greybeard grandfather to take it the wrong way.

 

I was rather thinking that Newton might have realized that his physics didn't answer many questions and would have realized that Einstein was onto something. Perhaps farfetched but I was hoping one genius could recognize another. Then again, Newton was known for his ego and arrogance so Al probably wouldn't have made it past the butler.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that old people will eventually change their minds when they see the next great idea, albeit more slowly than young ones. Consider that an old person doesn't really need to learn much new physics, as he can probably keep doing his job with the old physics. As it is, it would take several years to retrain someone with new physics, and if they are just going to get old and die, if they are already old they might be better off staying with their old physics. After all, there is still plenty of room for people who just know classical physics. (not that I agree with this, but it kind of makes sense).

 

However, if people did not grow old, they would definitely be better off learning the new stuff.