Back

@medigoth

That helps a lot. I do disagree that when those revolution-type ideas were presented, it was usually by other experts. The biggest reason being that a new field has no experts when launched!

But there is a problem with the ratio, and what its importance would be. I've never counted (or seen anyone else do so) the total # of discoveries, then crossed with the person's expert status, or how many did the laughing or ridiculing (vs harshly, vociferously disagreeing).

That said, I also understand your point (I think) about anti-intellectualism and/or cranks using it as the opposite of an appeal to authority (forgot the name of that fallacy).

Aside from those purposes, I'd ask how many ridiculers does it take to take the wind out of one's sails? How many better models have been abandoned or postponed from this behavior? How many poor models have stayed in the pole position because of it?

That's why I asked about the weight of "most": because we are so susceptible to claims from authoritative figures, just a few of them outweigh a more 'democratic' outcome, which science is not supposed to be of course, but is anyway to a large extent when we talk about consensus, and how many people who 'voted' for the status quo actually read & understand (ie, at least quasi-experts) the proposed alternatives. ("Vote" just meaning going along with the majority as an evolutionary, statistical bet.)

As you opened with, that is the safest bet to place. Until it's not..