The right way to be a scientific contrarian
There are, in general, two ways in which scientific advancement occurs. There’s the slow, incremental change that represents most scientific advances: where the existing scientific foundation gets built upon in a small but meaningful way. Typically, we perform experiments or observations, acquire new data, better determine key parameters about whatever it is we’re investigating, but in a way that doesn’t invalidate our revolutionize our prior understanding. On the other hand, there are also scientific revolutions: where a new discovery, or sometimes even just a new theoretical framework, blows up our old scientific foundation, and demands that we replace it with an entirely new conception about how some phenomenon in the Universe actually works. This latter class of advances — representing huge shifts in our scientific foundations — have happened many times before. Examples include: Kepler’s development of a heliocentric solar system with elliptical planetary orbits, the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics for describing Earth’s crust, the Darwin’s theory of evolution, guided by the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations, and Einstein’s overthrow …


