blog

Last week I discussed “Why Science Is Broken (and how to fix it).” I got some interesting responses, but one in particular is worth noting.

This fellow wrote to me with his story of woe while trying to get some of his alternative theories accepted in the physics community. His bottom line was this: “as an outsider, your theories aren’t accepted and you won’t be listened to.” The implication was that, if I leave science, then any criticisms that I might make about “the system” (like in my post) will be ignored.

With two ‘ifs’ we have agreement:

1. If I make the criticism to the wrong people; and

2. If I attack those people directly with the criticism,

THEN I am likely to be ignored.

I’ve observed that those who have alternative theories (about science, religion, or anything else) often take this defense-raising, attacking approach. “You’re all wrong, you’re all clueless” is the basic message conveyed. Upon hearing this, the recipient immediately raises defenses and fights back, in turn saying to herself: “this person can safely be ignored.”

Yes indeed, I’ve done it myself. I have an “alternative theory” that might explain how gravity works, providing the start to a “grand unified field theory.” I approached my brother, a well-respected theoretical physicist, with my idea. It didn’t go too well, for three reasons:

1. I’m an outsider;

2. I went on the attack; and

3. I didn’t have testable evidence to back up my theories.

Later on, a friend of mine developed a computational model based on my theory, and it showed some promise (i.e. providing some testable evidence). But by the time that happened, my brother was already on the defensive, and the conversation was over. Neither of us were listening to the other.

Going on the attack almost never works. And it usually doesn’t work to fight the mainstream head on, either.

Instead, a more persuasive and subtle, off-angle approach nearly always works better. This is an approach that avoids attacking the “mainstream,” instead patiently accumulating evidence and having on-the-side conversations with those who will listen. With enough persistence (and if the idea withstands the test of time), those side conversations often become the new mainstream conversations. But that can take years, or sometimes decades.

People are dogmatic. It is not just scientists, it is everyone. That means that new and different-to-mainstream ideas always face a difficult, uphill battle for recognition. Given this fact of life, any proponent of a new idea has a choice to make:

1. Either attack and challenge those people who hold the view you want changed head-on, in which case you will likely get nowhere; or

2. Be more gentle and persuasive. Write about and talk about your ideas with people who are interested, or who are on the fringes of the mainstream. Develop a community, and don’t worry too much about what the mainstream is doing in the meantime.

And if you must go up against someone in the mainstream, do so by proposing your theory as a “minor extension” or “little add on,” instead of an outright attack.

This is especially important in grant writing. I’ve frequently seen people start a grant proposal with an all-out assault on existing paradigms. This is a recipe for sure rejection.

Instead, it is essential to realize that if you are proposing paradigm-shifting work, you have to be gently persuasive, or you have no hope. It’s just the way that groups of poeple operate: groups are by and large conservative and don’t respond well to new ideas, especially when long-held beliefs are being challenged.

So if you’re writing a proposal for something truly new and different, you’ll have to walk a fine line between raising defenses on the one hand, versus watering things down on the other hand, either of which will not yield what you want (presumably funding).

Meanwhile, if you want to learn some new ways for maximizing your chances with a grant, you can grab your very own copy of the new CD: “Why your proposal needs Massive Transformational Value”, right here.