16
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
against this subservient attitude and modern science was born, most notably
with Galileo (1564–1642 CE) and his followers, who stressed the importance
of observation and experiment in arriving at scientific truth.
Lest we become too smug and dismissive of eighty generations of past
philosophers, who willingly placed their own ideas subservient to those of
the demigod Aristotle, it is appropriate here to examine the current situation
in the practice of science. It might be expected that an open-minded examination of new ideas, with no resort to prejudice, would prevail, in accord
with the spirit of nullius in verba. However, the history of science abounds
with examples of scientists who have had their work dismissed for reasons
other than lack of scientific merit. (See, e.g. Barber [5].)
Max Planck, who introduced the concept of quanta, or energy packets,
into physics (see Chap. 5) reported on how a paper containing his ideas was
received by his university professors: None of my professors at the University had
any understanding for its contents. I found no interest, let alone approval, even
among the very physicists who were closely connected with the topic. Helmholtz
probably did not even read my paper at all. Kirchhoff expressly disapproved …
I did not succeed in reaching Clausius. He did not answer my letters, and I did
not find him at home when I tried to see him in person at Bonn. I carried on a
correspondence with Carl Neumann, of Leipzig, but it remained totally fruitless
[6].
Mendel’s ground-breaking work on the inheritance of physical characteristics, which is regarded as the harbinger of modern genetics, was ignored for
thirty-five years, and only resurfaced in 1900 when Correns, de Vries and von
Tschermak rediscovered his laws of inheritance. Mendel’s work suffered from
three damning faults: it ran counter to the prevailing wisdom on the inheritance of biological characteristics; it made use of mathematics, unheard of at
that time in biology, and its author was only an unknown monk from Brunn,
and not a member of the scientific establishment.
Others, now household names in the world of science, suffered similar
discrimination. Ohm’s work on electricity was ignored, partly because he was
of insufficient professional standing, being only a mathematics teacher at a
Jesuit High School in Cologne. Pasteur’s discovery of germs and their role
in infection was spurned because he had no medical qualifications. Oliver
Heaviside’s cri de coeur: “even men who are not Cambridge mathematicians
deserve justice” was a consequence of his work in mathematical physics being
ignored for twenty-five years.
It is interesting to examine some of the motivations of those who impeded
the acceptance of scientific works that later turned out to be seminal. For
instance, some scientists bore prejudices based on their own approach to
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
against this subservient attitude and modern science was born, most notably
with Galileo (1564–1642 CE) and his followers, who stressed the importance
of observation and experiment in arriving at scientific truth.
Lest we become too smug and dismissive of eighty generations of past
philosophers, who willingly placed their own ideas subservient to those of
the demigod Aristotle, it is appropriate here to examine the current situation
in the practice of science. It might be expected that an open-minded examination of new ideas, with no resort to prejudice, would prevail, in accord
with the spirit of nullius in verba. However, the history of science abounds
with examples of scientists who have had their work dismissed for reasons
other than lack of scientific merit. (See, e.g. Barber [5].)
Max Planck, who introduced the concept of quanta, or energy packets,
into physics (see Chap. 5) reported on how a paper containing his ideas was
received by his university professors: None of my professors at the University had
any understanding for its contents. I found no interest, let alone approval, even
among the very physicists who were closely connected with the topic. Helmholtz
probably did not even read my paper at all. Kirchhoff expressly disapproved …
I did not succeed in reaching Clausius. He did not answer my letters, and I did
not find him at home when I tried to see him in person at Bonn. I carried on a
correspondence with Carl Neumann, of Leipzig, but it remained totally fruitless
[6].
Mendel’s ground-breaking work on the inheritance of physical characteristics, which is regarded as the harbinger of modern genetics, was ignored for
thirty-five years, and only resurfaced in 1900 when Correns, de Vries and von
Tschermak rediscovered his laws of inheritance. Mendel’s work suffered from
three damning faults: it ran counter to the prevailing wisdom on the inheritance of biological characteristics; it made use of mathematics, unheard of at
that time in biology, and its author was only an unknown monk from Brunn,
and not a member of the scientific establishment.
Others, now household names in the world of science, suffered similar
discrimination. Ohm’s work on electricity was ignored, partly because he was
of insufficient professional standing, being only a mathematics teacher at a
Jesuit High School in Cologne. Pasteur’s discovery of germs and their role
in infection was spurned because he had no medical qualifications. Oliver
Heaviside’s cri de coeur: “even men who are not Cambridge mathematicians
deserve justice” was a consequence of his work in mathematical physics being
ignored for twenty-five years.
It is interesting to examine some of the motivations of those who impeded
the acceptance of scientific works that later turned out to be seminal. For
instance, some scientists bore prejudices based on their own approach to