I’d like to recommend everybody to read a fantastic article written by a famous scientific maverick Tommy Gold, “New Ideas in Science” [published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 103-112, 1989]. Gold has discussed two very deep-penetrating ideas. One is about the herd behavior in the scientific community, which is self-multiplying or exponentially compounding, especially aggravated by the current support structure and peer-review system of science. This is a disastrous tendency as it could certainly lead to a phase transition or singularity, i.e., the dead end of a field or a stifled progress.
To preserve diversity of ideas in science and defeat the herd behavior, Gold introduced an idea, proposed by his friend Arthur Katrowitz, of “science court”. It is basically a peer-review system using non-expert scientists in other fields to judge issues of the field in question, which is similar to the proposal I have outlined in the strategy of funding high-risk, high-reward projects in my article of “OePRESS: an Open ePrint and Rigorous Evaluation System for STEM“.
Before Gold dives into his deep insights about herd instinct, he introduces the imaginative concept of an ideal scientist. It just represents a perfect judge who can fairly evaluate all scientific ideas without bias and prejudice. Unfortunately, it is not realistic at all. In practice, it could be harmful to the introduction of new ideas into a field. “Let the bullets fly for a while”, instead of rushing to judgment under the guise of imagined fairness, might be a better attitude towards new ideas. Defenders of the doctrine or paradigm often refute new ideas in the name of scientific fairness. New ideas, especially at their nascent stage (without further and richer evidence revealed later on), may not stand against milder objections from scientists with least bias and prejudice, let alone much harsher attacks from authoritative bigots. A lower bar of scientific tolerance for new ideas is much needed in today’s science. And we should even allocate a small but dedicated amount of funding (e.g., 5%) to support such efforts.
