Timeline for Why were quasicrystals initially so controversial?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2021 at 10:10 | comment | added | matt_black | While many radical ideas in science take a long time to find acceptance (eg plate tectonics) this is not one of those examples. There was resistance to quasicrystals, but their acceptance came quickly after the best known mathematical examples. The speed is, if anything, surprising when the acceptance involved rejecting the most fundamental assumption behind the theory of crystallography. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 8:45 | vote | accept | George Kontogeorgiou | ||
| Jun 24, 2021 at 8:44 | vote | accept | George Kontogeorgiou | ||
| Jun 24, 2021 at 8:45 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2021 at 2:45 | history | edited | Nilay Ghosh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 23, 2021 at 23:16 | comment | added | Nullius in Verba | Sure. I can understand why people would object. I just thought that the "how is it possible for very intelligent people" part implied a particular view on the intellectual merits of opposition that also needed answering. Enough said. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 23:06 | comment | added | orthocresol | Hmm, well, ok. I honestly don't think it's answering the question (the 'chemical reason' OP sought is in your first paragraph and ends there), but I can also see why you feel it's important to include it. But let's leave this discussion; it's your answer, after all. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 23:00 | comment | added | Nullius in Verba | @orthocresol The psychology is supposed to be addressing a more general point about the philosophy of science. Not only did Pauling have 'an actual chemical reason' for his opposition, but he was right to do so, and probably made the great achievements in chemistry that he did precisely because he stuck to his guns. This is probably a more important reason, in scientific terms, than the merely technical one. The importance of sceptical opposition to science is not anecdotal/speculative. And social dynamics are important to understanding why this behaviour constantly happens in science. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 22:52 | comment | added | orthocresol | I think the paragraph about 'psychology'—while perhaps an interesting point for reflection—is not needed, particularly on a site where Q and A are supposed to be factual rather than than speculative. In a way, the question sets itself up for anecdotal / speculative answers, but psychoanalysis may be taking it a bit too far. In my opinion, this paragraph doesn't really add much to your answer; the rest about scientific process etc. is more valuable. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 22:25 | comment | added | Nullius in Verba | @Mithoron, the answer to the question was that Pauling advocated 'twinning'. That's 'an actual chemical reason', as requested. Why would you want to prevent such an answer? | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 22:12 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Jun 23, 2021 at 22:49 | |||||
| Jun 23, 2021 at 22:08 | comment | added | Mithoron | I think I commented earlier to prevent such answer as that, wasn't too effective, I guess. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 22:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 24, 2021 at 9:29 | |||||
| Jun 23, 2021 at 21:53 | history | answered | Nullius in Verba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |