Why Are Scientists So Harsh Toward New Ideas?

Encouraging healthy skepticism and thorough examination of new ideas is not an act of cruelty; it exemplifies the integrity and honesty fundamental to science.

Every few months, a groundbreaking headline emerges, claiming to transform our understanding of core scientific concepts. These bold assertions can range from "the Big Bang never happened" to "this theory negates the need for dark matter and dark energy," and even "black holes are a myth," or "this unusual cosmic event is caused by extraterrestrials." Despite the sensational coverage that accompanies these claims, they often fade into obscurity, receiving little serious attention beyond dismissal.

Critics often label scientists in these areas as rigid and resistant to new concepts. While this viewpoint may resonate with those holding unconventional beliefs, it misrepresents the essence of scientific inquiry. In truth, the evidence backing established theories is substantial, and many of the attention-grabbing claims are akin to mere play. Below are four significant pitfalls common to new ideas that contribute to their quick decline after introduction.

1. Expertise Allows for Instant Recognition of Flaws In science, we possess an extensive body of knowledge comprised of experimental results and observational data, alongside theories that accurately elucidate the laws governing our reality. Many findings may initially appear strange and counterintuitive, leading to multiple theoretical frameworks. Over time, rigorous testing has narrowed these down to the most robust theories.

Proposals aiming to reshape established theories face numerous challenges, including the necessity to:

• Reproduce all successes of the existing theory,
• Provide a better explanation for certain phenomena,
• Make new, testable predictions that diverge from the theory they seek to replace.

It is exceedingly rare for a new proposal to meet all three criteria. In fact, most fail even at the first hurdle.

Attempts to describe the Universe without a hot Big Bang struggle to account for the Cosmic Microwave Background, an omnidirectional radiation pattern known for over 55 years. Claims that gravitational wave detectors are merely detecting noise overlook the extensive evidence linking electromagnetic observations with gravitational wave signals. The idea of gravity emerging from another entity fails to maintain the necessary ratios of dark matter to normal matter.

Proposing an idea that addresses one issue of the prevailing theory isn't sufficient. A single new observation can often be explained by introducing a new variable, but if this addition can't explain other phenomena, it likely won't gain traction.

2. Recycling Old, Disproven Ideas Most of us have indulged in imaginative musings about reality. Perhaps you've pondered:

• Could a straight-line journey through the Universe eventually bring you back to your starting point?
• Are fundamental particles like quarks and electrons actually composite entities made from more basic components?
• Might there exist a new field permeating the Universe that explains what we currently identify as dark matter and dark energy?

These ideas are intriguing and have been explored in depth through various papers. However, each has encountered significant issues leading to their abandonment, with no fresh evidence supporting them over established theories. For instance, the concept of a non-trivial universe topology remains fascinating, yet evidence suggests that its "size" must be far greater than the observable universe. If any fundamental particles were composite, they would have shown that behavior under existing experimental conditions.

Proposing alternative explanations for dark matter or dark energy introduces more complexities without yielding simpler solutions. While exploring these avenues is permissible, without addressing issues that the prevailing theory cannot explain, such proposals are merely intellectual exercises.

3. Avoiding Ideologically Driven Conclusions One major pitfall for scientists, especially those new to the field, is starting with a conclusion motivated by ideology. If a puzzling phenomenon captivates you, it’s natural to wonder, “What if ____________ could elucidate what we're observing?” There’s nothing wrong with this curiosity, nor with exploring the theoretical ramifications.

However, once you become convinced that your idea is the definitive answer, you risk sliding into unscientific territory. This mindset leads to manipulating your theory to fit the conclusion you wish to reach. Such backward reasoning can yield desired results but lacks scientific validity.

Numerous scientists have succumbed to this trap. Fred Hoyle insisted that the Universe was in a steady state, dismissing the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. Arthur Eddington believed stars could not exceed certain characteristics, despite observations showing otherwise. Even Einstein, in his later years, clung to the notion that quantum randomness must be deterministic, leading to no significant breakthroughs.

These influential figures often hindered progress until their passing, underscoring that intuition—regardless of achievements—cannot replace the knowledge gained through rigorous inquiry. Johannes Kepler exemplifies this, choosing the less aesthetically pleasing theory of elliptical orbits over the “beautiful” concept of perfect spheres due to its superior fit to the data.

4. Self-Criticism is Essential Did you fall in love with your idea? This is a common issue. In science, we must be our harshest critics, exploring every facet of our ideas before sharing them with others. Failing to identify weaknesses or limitations in our hypotheses means others will inevitably do so.

This process is not cruelty, nor is it close-mindedness or dogmatism; it is a critical aspect of scientific inquiry. Regrettably, most “new ideas” collapse under the weight of existing evidence, just as many original explanations for phenomena ultimately fail to encompass the entirety of the universe's evidence.

If you hold an unconventional idea, consider these questions:

• What problem motivated this idea?
• How does it compare to the prevailing theory regarding this specific phenomenon?
• How does it hold up against the other successes of the established theory?
• What critical tests can be performed to differentiate your idea from the existing one?

As Richard Feynman wisely stated, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Demanding scientific rigor is not an act of cruelty, dogmatism, or closed-mindedness; it is a demonstration of integrity and a commitment to uncovering the scientific truths concerning the phenomena we study. Numerous brilliant ideas have been discarded for sound reasons: they failed to align with observed reality. Regardless of how captivating an idea may appear, if it contradicts empirical evidence, it is incorrect.

There is a wealth of fascinating and viable ideas awaiting exploration, with ample room for speculation about the unknown. However, we must approach novel ideas with scientific rigor, avoiding selective attention to only those phenomena that favor our hypotheses while disregarding inconvenient realities.

Ultimately, the Universe will always serve as the final judge of what is real and which theories best represent our reality. It is our responsibility as scientists to rigorously pursue these truths. Without responsible inquiry, we risk deceiving ourselves into accepting what we wish to believe. Upholding integrity and intellectual honesty is essential in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Starts With A Bang is authored by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D., who wrote Beyond The Galaxy and Treknology: The Science of Star Trek from Tricorders to Warp Drive.