Does change of mind make a scientist weak?

In our everyday life, people are praised for maintaining some particular point of view, for the courage of their convictions. A change of mind is seen as a sign of weakness. How does this apply to a scientist?

Everyday life...

In everyday life, conviction - a strong belief or persuasion about a matter, is often shaped by several socio-cultural and religious factors (Skitka et al., 2018). These factors influence the system of beliefs and the applause people receive for maintaining such systems. Our everyday life ideas cannot be tested in the laboratory to ascertain their validity; hence their correctness is of less importance compared to science where every single hypothesis can be subjected to test.

The life of a scientist

In the field of science, high priority is placed on integrity and honesty. In fact, a scientific hypothesis is only scientific if there is a way it can be proven wrong and this forms the cardinal difference between science and other fields (Popper, 2002). Scientific findings are publicly shared among other scientists to enable reproducibility of results, this alone enforces honesty considering that once a scientist’s findings are retracted, it is almost impossible to regain credibility.

What drives scientific discovery?

Inquisitiveness drives scientific accomplishments. Even though early scientists followed no particular order in their scientific quests, one thing was common to them - they were inquisitive and searched for valid explanations to observable occurrences. Most often, they used arbitrary assumptions to reason and arrive at conclusions depending on the situation being observed (Bacon, 1994). The modern scientists on the other hand uses the method of observable phenomena to seek explanations through experimentation. This is achieved through the formulation of testable hypothesis (National Academies of Sciences, 2019).

Sometimes, results of experiments may not turn out as expected or in-line with the hypothesis formulated, a scientist must learn to accept this in good fate. As new evidences emerge, different scientific theories have evolved through redefinition and modification, often serving as the basis for further knowledge. An example of theories in science which has been debunked is about aether. The aether was famously thought to be the medium through which light travelled until the late 1800s when Michelson and Morley proved the theory wrong with their experiments on the speed of light and direction of movement (Michelson & Morley, 1887).

It follows that, when scientific hypothesis undergoes series of experimentation and extensive scrutiny without opposing views, it becomes a theory. A theory that holds true without contradictions after several investigations becomes a law or principle. The popular statement that “no scientific theory is right; it only stands right until proven wrong” holds true in many circumstances. Meaning, if another scientist finds contradicting evidence against a postulation, an idea, a theory or law, it must be modified or completely discarded, notwithstanding the position or status of the scientists involved (Hewitt, 2002).

For instance, the Mendelian inheritance theories (Mendel, 1866) have undergone several modifications to give what we have today as the principles of inheritance. Even though these theories have been modified, it served as the foundation for our current understanding of genetic inheritance today. Also, certain aspects of Sir Isaac Newton’s postulations were partially proven to be wrong by the famous Albert Einstein’s relativity theory. Even though these scientists were well-respected and famous, their theories underwent certain level of modifications on which current knowledge is built.

Therefore, scientists ought to see adjustments to theories as instrumental for the greater good of science and for humanity and not as a sign of weakness. In fact, it only displays competence and increasing growth when scientists are opened to new ideas or when confronted with irrefutable experimental evidences that may be contrary to their famous postulations. This way, a more valid hypothesis could be formulated that could lead to a novel or ground-breaking scientific discovery (Hewitt, 2002).

Accidental discoveries

Even though some scientific discoveries such as the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming, were serendipitous, the scientific process of inquiry can be a daunting one sometimes. In simple terms, the scientific methods of inquiry often begin with identification of a gap in knowledge, followed by asking relevant questions that are generated based on the puzzle being solved. This is followed by the generation of hypothesis for which tests are carried out to prove the hypothesis right or wrong (Hewitt, 2002). Many scientific findings resulted from repeated trial and error borne out of keen curiosity to decipher how systems work, underlying processes and resultant effects of different occurrences.

It then suffices to say that a scientist needs some level of dexterity in pursuing research goals even in the midst of discouraging negative outcomes. The trajectory of science is paved with the integrity, inquisitiveness and the openness to new knowledge by scientists, rather than simply adhering to the scientific method itself. A good scientist would need a thorough knowledge of opposing ideas to support their research claims rather misconceptions originating from a biased or sentimental interest.

Thank you for reading.

Let me know your thoughts.

Kindly add your comment.