It has been said that science does not progress by old scientists changing their minds. It progresses by old scientists dying and new ones taking their place. Throughout the history of humankind we can see how this drama plays out. Young rebels come up with new ideas, and then in the end they, too, become inflexible, holding onto the new scientific dogmas that they have created. I was reminded of this recently when I read that the 2011 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry had earlier in his career been forced out of his research group for theorizing about quasi-crystals. He had even been derided by the famous scientist Linus Pauling for his idea.
When Einstein built on the work of Max Planck in coming up with quantum theory, Planck could not adjust to the new ideas at first. Einstein was the rebel; Planck was the old guard. However, after Einstein convinced the world of the basics of quantum theory, even he could not adapt to all of its unusual implications; he ironically became the "old guard" that the young new physicists had to fight against. If this process of revolutionary turned defender of the scientific faith occurred with Einstein, then I guess it would occur with just about anyone.
How is it that creative and brilliant persons sometimes become inflexible in later years?
This makes sense if we think about how the brain develops in early life and then how it ages in later life. It begins with more neurons than it needs, and then as the child develops, unused neurons begin dying off. The brain becomes committed to using certain pathways rather than others. In our older years, there is shrinkage of frontal lobe neurons. The brain shrinks 2% each decade. There can be "hardening of the arteries" causing cell death; there can be changes in cell structure of neurons in the brain. One of the functions of the frontal lobes is to make it possible to shift in our ways of doing things. The baby's brain is almost totally flexible, but with the loss of function in the frontal lobes, we lose flexibility.
Some people would argue that as we age it is our duty to resist change at times--to stick to our values and beliefs for the benefit of society. This makes a certain amount of sense. There are several changes occurring in our society that I do not like. We need to hold on to certain ideas and conventions (think--Bill of Rights), for the benefit of future generations.
However, there are undoubtedly less altruistic motivations for holding on to the past as well. Some might be economic, such as when people are part of an establishment group which benefits from the status quo. Scientists may cling to old beliefs not only because they cannot conceptually conceive of the validity of new beliefs but also because their ego (and even their names) are often associated with old discoveries and theories.
But we can try to be open to new ideas, and when we see a good one, we can encourage it along. It may be our duty to resist and try to put a brake on to the wrong headed ones, but I don't think any of us wants to be known as the one who stood in the way of an improved life or vision for humanity.
If we need to be flexible at times and conservative at times, where do we draw the line? Let's assume that some new ideas need to be resisted, either because they are not true, or because in the long run, they will be bad for society. As a starting point, let's assume that 50% of the new ideas are good and useful, and 50% need to be resisted because of being destructive or wrong in some way. This 50/50 ratio may not be the right proportion, but it is a place to start. If we were to uncritically accept 100% of new social developments as good and logical, then that would probably just be wrong. And if we were to resist 100% of new technological and social developments, then that would be irrationally inflexible. So the farther we get from a 50/50 stance, the more we probably need to at least ask ourselves whether we are being flexible enough or whether we have a totally uncritical stance to change.
So, the bottom line would be, use your frontal lobes and try to remain flexible. Try not to fall into the trap that many famous scientists and many of our forebears have fallen into. Try to maintain a reasonable openness to new ideas and new ways of doing things, even as you try to maintain and conserve the best of the old.
No comments:
Post a Comment