[stocknoob]

Scientists should be skeptics of their own conservatism. Much "conservatism" is in the name of defending egos.

“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.” - Max Plank

It'd be nice to not wait a generation.

[lrossi]

Right, there are plenty of such examples from physics. I was wondering if biology is the same. But it actually sounds worse.

I think computer science is doing much better nowadays. The “NoSQL” movement for example was particularly impressive, it’s something that wouldn’t fly in most other sciences.

[Sharlin]

NoSQL is much more about software engineering than computer science, and software engineering is ridiculously susceptible to fads in a way no mature engineering discipline should be. And almost never are those fads actually new ideas, because trends work cyclically rather than linearly. Most SWEs are just too ignorant of the history of their own trade to realize that.

[sjg007]

Except that NoSQL has been around for decades. It just went by a different name in the 1960s.

[selimthegrim]

Pick IIRC

[dboreham]

ISAM

[glitcher]

I think computer science benefits from the relatively low cost and widespread availability of hardware and software tools. You don't necessarily need huge financial backing to explore a new idea in many areas. Of course there are exceptions (super computing, quantum computing, etc), but the barrier to entry for curious beginners seems much lower than other scientific fields.

[ZephyrBlu]

We're onto NewSQL now.

[XorNot]

Great, got literally anything which is making a testable prediction to advance physics? No? Then come back when you do.

Physics isn't advancing because everything is degenerate to the standard model - any bold new idea still fails to predict an accessible experimental regime which would rule out alternatives.

[ramraj07]

Physics is a special case. Either we are unimaginative or we have truly started reaching the limits of what can and cannot be found. I think it's a mix of both but also I'm not a physicist so don't listen to me too much.

You might accuse me of calling Physicists of being unimaginative but I truly believe that to be the case. The most fascinating topic in this regard is the alcubierre drive; before that concept became famous when I asked any Physicist if we are truly stuck in our solar system for eternity due to light speed limit they said yes, it's actually mathematically absurd to even think of any other possibility. Then this topic comes, and as impossible as it sounds it's at least not absurd mathematically (absurd physically still, sure but I feel theres a difference). So it's wierd that more Physicists are not grabbing at crazy tails like this and truly push what their imagination can conjure up.

[cycomanic]

The scientist fighting against the establishment is always a popular twist on a discovery. That's why popular science articles often emphasise this aspect. The reality is much more complex and the above happens very rarely. Regarding physics for example, give me the last theory that went against the establishment and took a generation to be accepted. I really can't think of any in the last 80 years. Maybe EPR, or Bells inequality, but that took so long, because experiments could only be done quite recently. I would also argue it is not really a case of research against the establishment.

Also let's remember that the researchers mentioned by others above, were all running successful labs despite their ideas not being widely accepted. The reason why these theories take so long to be accepted is more a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" than "we don't like the theory".

[medstrom]

>Regarding physics for example, give me the last theory that went against the establishment and took a generation to be accepted.

Everett branches ("many worlds")?

[cycomanic]

That's not science in the strict sense, but interpretation (so more philosophy).

AFAIK, so far nobody has come up with a way to devise a test that could falsify any of the interpretations of quantum theory, which really is required to be a valid scientific theory.

Moreover, there has never been much dogma around interpretations of quantum theory. A highly recommended read is Ghost in the Atom by Paul Davies, which consists of interviews with many physicists about their quantum interpretations. It shows that people have had a wide variety of interpretations for a long time. The many world interpretation has become more popular, but it was already around in the 80s and certainly not being ridiculed.

[deepnotderp]

Indeed. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions lays this out well