new ideas, paradigm shift and normal criticism: ccsvi

[sbr487]

I just thought I will create a thread on how new path breaking ideas are normally treated. Add your own to the list ...

An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance:
1. The theory is not true;
2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant;
3. The theory is true, and it is important – but we knew it all along.

The point of this joke is that (according to scientific theorists) new theories are never properly appreciated. The ‘false’ phase happens because a defining feature of a revolutionary theory is that it contradicts the assumptions of already-existing mainstream theory. The second ‘trivial’ phase follows from a preliminary analysis which suggests that the new idea is not in fact contradicted by the major existing evidence, but the new theory seems unimportant because its implications do not seem to lead anywhere interesting when explored in the light of current theory. A stronger version of this second phase happens when the implications of a theory are regarded as not merely unimportant but actually dangerous, because a scientific revolution is certainly destructive (especially of established reputations) yet its potential benefits are conjectural. However, once a new and revolutionary theory is in place, its importance is ‘obvious’ such that it becomes hard to imagine how anybody could ever have believed anything else. Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim. Observations and experiments, on the other hand, are like toys in the fish tank. New toys are attention-grabbing; but when the tank gets cloudy, its water needs changing.

[sou]

At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win. --M. Gandhi

[zap]

Social constructionism and medical sociology: a study of the vascular theory of multiple sclerosis

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 0/PDFSTART

[L]

I invented a really good way to chop an onion five times quicker than conventional methods. My friends were sceptical until the saw me in action.

[Lyon]

.

[tara97]

if you mean that we have to dump that stupid theory of molecular mimicry, I agree. it is sooo stupid. I didnt even know that is was an unproven theory until I woke up in the middle of the night with the epiphony that it made no sense at all. so the next day I just looked it up and cross refered it with theory and it said that it was a "contoversial one". so yes CCSVI is a possibility. just know one thing, what is responsible for the contraction and release of veins. calcium and magnesium.

[rainer]

I agree with the concept but none of it makes CCSVI anymore correct then other theories that were once new and revolutionary.

[L]

I invented a really good way to chop an onion five times quicker than conventional methods. My friends were sceptical until the saw me in action.

That's got to be that wry British humor in action because I don't get it, unless the point is that people have to see it to believe it/proof is in the pudding?

I was thinking of the scepticism that I faced. But its true. I did invent it! I'll tell you about it one day perhaps. Anyone who's interested PM me. I don't think that it should be on the internet for just anyone to steal.

I know a really good way to peel a garlic clove too. Explaining the onion chopping, well, it works with any vegetable pretty much, is a bit drawn out, but the garlic crushing technique is really simple. Just cut off the root part and get a heavy object that's to hand and smash it down on the garlic. Hard enough to crush it a little, don't go overboard. Now the peel comes off almost on its own.

I'll stop now because this must be a little irritating for everyone, not least the OP. Sorry srb. But that garlic peeling technique is just great. If you didn't know about it before, it will revolutionise your life.

[Lyon]

.

[sbr487]

Story about Marshall who used himself as guinea pig to prove his hypothesis. It seems he had to face stiff opposition to his theory ...
Surpsingly, looks how it is closely related to CCSVI in terms of anecdote ...

H. pylori was the cause of ulcers was really just an anecdote, a n=1 experiment on Marshall, where he drank a culture of H. pylori, got gastritis, diagnosed via endoscope, then cured via antibiotics. An n=1 anecdote that he did not get IRB approval for, and which he reports he thought he could not get.