-2

Inspired by a recent question regarding Crackpot research paper, I was asking myself, what to do, if you have a new theory or approach but it is not accepted in the community? You are not allowed to speak on conferences, your papers are rejected, and your voice is not heard in your scientific community.

What can you do? What have others done?

usr1234567
  • 5,748
  • 14
  • 36
  • 3
    What do you do? Accept it and move on. It's possible to be wrong. Science is no merry-go-round where everyone takes turns being right . – henning Feb 01 '21 at 09:24
  • 2
    In a crack-nut shell: A theory is not accepted because you convince colleagues that it is right, but because you have closed all holes through which colleagues are able to show it is wrong. – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 12:18
  • @CaptainEmacs: Or, to phrase it differently: My theory is not accepted because I cannot convince colleagues, but because all holes are closed through which I could convince colleagues to show it is worth discussing it. (actually, I don't have a theory, but for the sake of the argument) – usr1234567 Feb 01 '21 at 12:25
  • @usr1234567 Not sure I understand. – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 12:38
  • @CaptainEmacs: You phrase as an active process (you have closed all holes), while my sentence is passive (all holes are closed) as the editors / reviewers / community does not allows the "crackpot" to have the discussion in the first place. And I have to admit, that might be a point of view. – usr1234567 Feb 01 '21 at 12:50
  • @usr1234567 Before one can try to talk to anybody, one first needs to learn the language they speak. If you barge into a party, do not expect to be welcome, even if you are the most dazzling party lion. First, find a way to fit in. So, it goes without saying that one needs to walk the walk and talk the talk. It is very rare that people can get accepted swiftly into a community. I have contributed publications outside of my main line of expertise, but made a point of understanding precisely how the community I published in is speaking. Most crackpots don't even bother trying. – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 13:35
  • 3
    One more thing. Does their work address an actual problem? What I found with crackpottish ideas is that people espousing these ideas claim to solve a problem with handwavy statements which do not prove anything that is not already known, which do not make any new predictions and which are just repackaging old knowledge into new terms without adding new quality; this is in the very best cases - in the worse cases, these theories simply do not say anything concrete but can be fit ("nostradamicized") to match any data one likes. – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 14:38
  • @CaptainEmacs. My question should be general. The actual instance of the problem is tricky: a guy wrote a PhD in physics with a professor in physics department and they know the language and how the game is played. Beside their ignored idea they are able to publish, get grant money and so on. I am not in the field, he just told me that it happend to him 20 years ago. – usr1234567 Feb 01 '21 at 15:03
  • 3
    @usr1234567 Sorry, but it is really not general. Too much depends on the concrete case and situation. A fellow student thought he found a (short) proof to the 4-colour theorem. His prof looked at the proof and couldn't find a mistake, until they realized that a "theorem" the prof gave in the lecture and which this proof relied on was actually wrong the way presented. This was an honest mistake, but everybody played the fairest game possible. Nobody thought the student was a crackpot. Your friend may have had a good result suppressed, a useless or nasty supervisor or simply... – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 15:24
  • 3
    ... completely overestimated their expertise. There is no general answer for this. All of these happen. A PhD means that they have the basic education to be a researcher, it does not say much about their ability to judge their own work well. Not saying that it's bad. They also may have been in a particularly cutthroat community? In which case, moving to a nicer community in a neighbouring field may be a solution. Or you have one really good insight or solid work followed up in their remaining life by crackpotism. Such - quite well-known - cases exist. – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 15:27
  • @CaptainEmacs "His prof looked at the proof and couldn't find a mistake, until they realized that a "theorem" the prof gave in the lecture and which this proof relied on was actually wrong the way presented." I'm no mathematician, but that might still be publishable? You'd just be taking the untrue theorem as an axiom, so might just wind up inventing an entirely new field of mathematics (e.g. Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry). – nick012000 Feb 03 '21 at 15:21
  • @nick012000 No, it was based on a wrong theorem. You would have to isolate which axiom implies that particular wrong theorem result; and it's unlikely one of the usual suspects (i.e. axiom of choice) could be isolated (I haven't seen the proof, but I'd be very surprised if that'd be the case). It was just a wrong theorem, nothing interesting and from a wrong theorem you cannot prove anything, or rather, everything. – Captain Emacs Feb 03 '21 at 16:21

2 Answers2

10

It is usually not the theory or the approach that is criticised, but the lack of evidence or scientific rigor.

If your theory or approach does not get accepted by the community, you should provide more evidence to convince them. If the proof becomes so good that the theory is no longer controversial, it will be accepted. This is how science works.

The stories you may hear about brilliant scientists not being believed are a typical case of survivor bias. Most crackpot theories are made by crackpots.

Louic
  • 10,299
  • 1
  • 27
  • 58
  • 4
    I upvoted, but it is not entirely true that "If [...] the theory is no longer controversial, it will be accepted." As Planck said: "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" - I do not think this is always the case, but there is a good amount of truth in this. However, remember: Being a genius may mean that people do not recognize your theory. But having your theory rejected does not imply that you are a genius. – Captain Emacs Feb 01 '21 at 14:42
3

Let me suggest a somewhat broader point of view. We are mostly thinking about "the scientific method" and "the scientific process" in terms of observations, proofs, theories and so on. However, as it is clear from other discussions here, there is a great amount of "soft-skillish" element involved, as with any activity that concerns communication.

As such, "a paper" is a way to communicate / spread our ideas, and if some theory of ours doesn't take roots, it means that we aren't very efficient communicators. Thus, even if a theory is eventually published in a respected journal, still a bumpy publication road may indicate that our way of transmitting ideas isn't particularly appealing.

Therefore, there is certain psychology involved, too. For the sake of the argument, suppose the theory I am pushing forward is sound. Even in this case, people are wary of "grand theories", where they first have to accept certain premises, and then see what kind of great building is being constructed in front of them.

I'd say that a more pragmatic approach would be to attack specific individual problems and show that you can solve them. Yes, it might be based on a certain (unknown or unaccepted) theory, but why bringing it in right away? Here is a problem, here is my solution, answer obtained, knowledge increased, everyone happy. After several success stories of this kind one might try to unify them all under a certain common umbrella of a "proposal" or "presumption" and let it to take root.

In other words, we should remember that we write for the reader. Why readers should care about our theories or take time to ponder whether they are sound or not? Readers seek something for themselves, and the best way to push our agenda is to show how it aligns with possible goals of our readers, and give the readers tools for their tasks in bite-size chunks, if possible, without overwhelming them with grand structures.

rg_software
  • 2,926
  • 12
  • 22