New Ideas in Science
THOMAS GOLD
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Abstract-The pace of scientific work continues to accelerate, but the
question is whether the pace of discovery will continue to accelerate. If we
were driving in the wrong direction-in the direction where no new ideas
can be accepted-then even if scientific work goes on, the progress would
be stifled. This is not to suggest that we are in quite such a disastrous
position, but on the other hand, not all is well.
New ideas in science are not always right just because they are new. Nor are
the old ideas always wrong just because they are old. A critical attitude is
clearly required of every scientist. But what is required is to be equally
critical to the old ideas as to the new. Whenever the established ideas are
accepted uncritically, but conflicting new evidence is brushed aside and not
reported because it does not fit, then that particular science is in deep
trouble-and it has happened quite often in the historical past. If we look
over the history of science, there are very long periods when the uncritical
acceptance of the established ideas was a real hindrance to the pursuit of the
new. Our period is not going to be all that different in that respect, I regret
to say.
I want to discuss this danger and the various tendencies that seem to me to
create it, or augment it. I can draw on personal experiences in my 40 years of
work on various branches of science and also on many of the great contro-
versies that have occurred in that same period.
I will start very naively by a definition of what a scientist is. He is a person
who will judge a matter purely by its scientific merits. His judgment will be
unaffected by the evaluation that he makes of the judgment that others
would make. He will be unaffected by the historical evaluation of the sub-
ject. His judgment will depend only on the evidence as it stands at the
present time. The way in which this came about is irrelevant for the scien-
tific judgment; it is what we now know today that should determine his
~ judgment. His judgment is unaffected by the perception of how it will be
received by his peers and unaffected by how it will influence his standing, his
financial position, his promotion-any of these personal matters. If the
evidence appears to him to allow several different interpretations at that
time, he will carry each one of those in his mind, and as new evidence comes
along, he will submit each new item of evidence to each of the possible
interpretations, until a definitive decision can be made. That is my naive
definition of a scientist.
I may have reduced the number of those whom you think of as scientists
very considerably by that definition. In fact, I may have reduced it to a null
class. But, of course, we have to be realistic and realize that people have
certain motivations. The motivation of curiosity is an important one, and I
hope it is a very important one in most scientists' minds. But I doubt that
there are many scientists to whom the motivation of curiosity about nature
would suffice to go through a lifetime of hard struggle to uncover new truths,
if they had no other motivation that would drive them along that same path.
If there was no question about appealing to one's peers to be acknowledged,
to have a reasonably comfortable existence, and so on, if none of this came
into the picture, I doubt that many people would choose a life of science.
When the other motivations come into the act, of course the judgment
becomes cloudy, becomes different from the ideal one, from the scientific
viewpoint, and that is where the main problem lies. What are the motiva-
tions? If there are motivations that vary from individual to individual, it
would not matter all that much because it would not drive the scientific
community as much to some common, and possibly bad, judgment. But if
there are motivations that many share, then of course that is another matter;
then it may drive the whole scientific community in the field in the wrong
direction. So, we must think: What are the communal judgment-clouding
motivations? What is the effect of the sociological setting? Is our present-day
organization of scientific work favorable or unfavorable in this respect? Are
things getting worse, or are they getting better? That is the kind of thing we
would like to know.
..... -> http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_03_2_gold.pdf
There's noting veiled or implied. The article is clear. IMO if you can't/don't understand it without explanation there's no point in discourse with you about this topic. I will only point out that plucking one sentence from a cohesive paragraph is not the way to understanding.