Revolutionary Theories
Scientists are
usually poor at people skills and at communicating things. The way they see it,
the data and equations should speak for themselves. But that very skill becomes
critical when a scientist comes up with a theory that is revolutionary and
threatens to up-end the existing system.
Take Max Planck,
the man who founded quantum mechanics. It was easy for Planck to go ahead with
his theory though it was revolutionary not because Planck was a great
communicator but because he himself was reluctant to accept the implications of
his own theory! Which is why Planck is always called the “reluctant
revolutionary”.
Not so was Ludwig
Boltzmann. In an age when physics had been repeatedly proven to be
deterministic and predictable since the time of Newton, Boltzmann said certain
aspects were merely probabilistic. He insisted he was right and argued
vehemently about it, but few at the time agreed and it caused Boltzmann no end
of anguish and frustration. (He was eventually proven right).
And then there is
Darwin. Though his theory of evolution was revolutionary and almost sure to
have attracted both scientific and religious opposition, one never heard of
Darwin feeling persecuted or frustrated. Why not? Adam Gopnik, in his book Angels and Ages, says that the best way
to argue a new point of view is as follows:
“A counterargument to your own should first
be summarized in its strongest form, with holes caulked as they appear, and
minor inconsistencies or infelicities of phrasing looked past. Then, and only
then, should a critique begin.”
Gopnik says Darwin
did exactly that brilliantly:
“All of what remain today as the chief
objections to his theory are introduced by Darwin himself, fairly and
accurately, and in a spirit of almost panicked anxiety – and then rejected not
by bullying insistence but by specific example, drawn from the reservoir of his
minute experience of life.”
Darwin’s tone
while arguing his case helped too, says Gopnik:
“Darwin invented, cannily, a special,
pleading, plaintive tone – believe me, I know that the counterview not only is
strong but sounds a lot saner, to you and me both. And yet...”
And boy, did
Darwin do that well:
“Darwin not only posits the counterclaims;
he inhabits them. He moved beyond sympathetic summary to empathetic argument.
He makes the negative case as urgent as the positive claims.”
Empathy in a
scientist? That’s a new one! Empathy at a level to be able to present the
opponent’s argument as well as he would have? That sounds like Shakespeare!
Certainly it looks like that Darwin was 'special' in the sense he had uncannily arrived at a way to present the idea, somehow creating an unconscious openness in the people who would read it. Unsurprisingly, for all the Christian-dogma-demolition-potential in it, his theory steadily moved towards acceptance. I like the blog's reference to Shakespeare in comparison - good that England which honored Shakespeare, honored in no less measure great scientists, philosophers etc.
ReplyDeleteLong before Newton, without thinking of any defensive approach while not letting go of his reserved nature, Newton had published his Principia Mathematica. It opened a completely new era for physics. One can be happy that Newton was honored greatly in his own time. Surprise because it only just before his time that Galeleo, Copernicus and others were subjected to persecution by the Catholic Church. No doubt, England being a Protestant nation, without any Pope-like figure heading that Christian denomination did help. I also consider that the mindset in Europe was to give importance to emerging sciences; England had a bigger role initially in this regard.
I am inclined to believe that the mood to receive science truths had improved considerably by the time Darwin entered the scene.
This blog does suggest (side by side) that even after much progress, the scientific community can choose to live in wells than in lakes (or even bigger water bodies). Ludwig Boltzmann mentioned in this blog is a good pointer on this matter. Unfortunately some other scientists too suffered like Boltzmann. Like in life, things need not be all fair in the science domain too.
We must be thankful that there was and is good acceptance for evolution theory across the world, and the theory is not facing extinction! :-) I like to go resonate with "Satyameva Jayate" in this context; evolution idea is truth and religious ideas opposing that are false. Note, I have not stopped being a believer but I contend differently, "Why should we believe that evolution idea has to contradict or dismiss God?"