What we accept as knowledge today is not always accepted as true tomorrow. Knowledge is more than a collection of facts on a particular topic. That is just information. Knowledge includes the assumption of a greater understanding as to how the facts work together. This means establishing connections between the facts, establishing meaning, providing evidence, considering the implications and arriving at a level of knowledge with a reasonable degree of certainty. This allows the assemblage of a body of knowledge that can be viewed from different perspectives and provides insight into a topic and how it fits into the greater world around it. This makes knowledge more than just facts and information it closes the gap between information and knowledge and allows for the personal interpretation. The interpretation makes it possible for today’s knowledge to be discarded tomorrow based on one person’s deep examination and interpretation. This is one of the reasons why the scientific community is resistant to change and appears as unaccepting of new thoughts and theories. Revolutionary thinkers such as Charles Darwin and Max Planck ran into this resistance when presenting their theories because they challenged the popular knowledge of their times and presented cause for what accepted as knowledge to be discarded in favor of a new way of thinking.
Darwin’s theories went that step of simple knowledge and therefore beyond the thinking of his predecessors. Other scientists before him had evaluated the topic. The study of Biology, how species originated and how they developed was not a field of research that began with Darwin. Other scientists before him had added information and provided insight the field of biology. Darwin grew up in the society of some of these researchers. . There were also contemporary thinkers working in this field. Never the less, although they added to the facts and information they did not offer the insight and knowledge to take it further. It is not enough to accrue facts to create knowledge. This is why the nature and truth of knowledge can change overnight. Facts must be ordered and conjoined in order to present a body of knowledge. Therefore, a new way of thinking can create new knowledge based upon existing facts, information and findings. Generally, that involves including the prior research and thoughts of the other scientists who also worked on the same stream of thought.
This process of examination, testing, agreement or disagreement are easier in the natural sciences and mathematical disciplines as their proof system lends itself to the experimentation process of testing, trial and error. Human sciences are based upon generalization, interpretation and the assimilation that makes it more difficult to produce definitive evidence.
Knowing that this opposition would exist Darwin presented the strongest objection to his work on The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection set them out fully and refuted them as part of the process he used to prove his theory. This occurs when he addresses transitional forms. Although transitional forms would customarily imply that there should then be existing transitional forms showing the evolutionary process. In his work, he argued against the necessity for these transitional forms and in favor of a branching divergent process, which takes place through extermination of the less specialized forms. Another argument that he refutes is that of species that have a peculiar habit or structure. In those situations, it would appear that the transitional form would be so poorly suited to the environmental stresses that sufficient transitory individuals would not survive long enough to make the transition to the new form. The bat is an example of this presumably unsustainable transitional form. While the power of true flight is an advantage the no other mammal has, the transitional form apparently seems so awkward it would serve as a deterrent to the evolutionary process. Although there are no lemur subspecies, which has a transitional gliding phase there are flying squirrels who glide rather than fly. Those squirrels provide an example of a potential transitional form.
Two other objections Darwin raised and refuted were highly complex structures. The human eye is one such highly complex that has no surviving intervening states. This does not preclude an evolutionary process in this instance as nature provides examples of different degrees of complexity. In addressing this point however Darwin does admit that a complex organ with no conceivable intervening states could provide the grounds to reject his theory. Another strong argument against natural selection is seemly useless characteristics. Natural selection works by seizing every opportunity to develop better adapt and increase the likelihood of survival. Some animals have characteristics that like the tail on a giraffe, appear to have no functional advantage. Darwin argues the counter point that the potential usefulness of a particular structure could be underestimated. While a giraffe’s tail serves no known purpose other than that of brushing away flies, in the tropic regions where the giraffes live, biting insects can represent a serious problem and having a useful appendage to repel them would create an advantage. Therefore, other appendages with no apparent use could prove to be an unappreciated advantage.
Max Planck’s Nobel Prize winning theory of Quantum Physics would seem to be one of those areas of knowledge that could either be immediately proven or discarded. The exacting world of numbers and physics should leave no room for argument. That was not what Max Planck experienced. Planck’s work encompasses much more than the fame derived from his role as originator of the quantum theory that won him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918. He also made many other contributions to theoretical physics. However, Max Planck’s work on the quantum scale drew him the greatest fame. It is also this quantum theory that caused the greatest criticism since it was a whole new prospective. In the realm of quantum physics, Planck’s theory held true, however it raised additional issues such as those involving entanglement. . Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a Distance." Nearly one hundred years since Planck’s Nobel Prize it is still difficult for most people to understand. Essentially, entanglement provides that if two particles are entangled at a local level they will remain entangled even at a great distance. Although this would seem to defy logic and present an impossible situation it never the less is fact. Repeatedly, science proved that photons become entangled when they interact on a local, physical level. Once entangled they can be separated and still respond to each other. This is not just a onetime phenomenon, or an occasional occurrence repeated experiments produce consistent results. The effects are instantaneous and occur even over vast distances. A third consideration is that humans are made of the same particles at that quantum level of reality. That means that we, as humans are part of the tangled web of quantum entanglement. It is no wonder that this theory raised objections to this notion of quantum reality. Even in a situation where biology do not come into play, the perception of changing theory that affects how information is processed and examined before it becomes part of the body of scientific knowledge. There are still people who firmly advocate against Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Nearly one hundred years after max Planck receive his Nobel Prize for Physics; Spooky action at a distance is still being explored by the scientific community. .
This is in keeping with how the public and the world of biologic and evolutionary sciences examined Darwin’s work, scrutinizing it from a variety and subjecting it to every test they could create to prove its veracity. This is a frequent reaction when confronted with revolutionary thought. Considering how often humankind has been wrong, it is not unacceptable or unwise. The most revolutionary theories draw the most universal fame, the greatest controversy and the greatest adversary. Planck’s theory revolutionized our understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. It also drew criticism from as Albert Einstein for a number of reasons. Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized our understanding of space and time but it breaks down on the subatomic Planck scale. That caused Einstein to dismiss it initially as spooky action at a distance. Both Darwin and Planck have forced humankind to revise some cherished philosophical beliefs. In doing this both men effected modern life and how we view our planet.
Revolutionary thinkers such as Charles Darwin and Max Planck ran into resistance when presenting their theories because the scientific community is well aware that theories accepted as knowledge today are sometimes discarded tomorrow. For this reason, scientists not only build upon each other’s theories they also consistently recheck, revalidate them and sometimes invalidate them. While this often involves new information and facts this is not always the case. Einstein’s theories once thought to be universally true, do not hold up on the quantum scale. It could be that new findings allow the gap between Einstein’s and Planck’s thinking, or another thinker could come along and both of them
Chemical Heritage Foundation. "Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier." 2014. Chemical Heritage Foundation. <http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/online-resources/chemistry-in-history/themes/early-chemistry-and-gases/lavoisier.aspx>.
—. "Joseph Priestley." 2014. Chemical Heritage Foundation. <http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/online-resources/chemistry-in-history/themes/early-chemistry-and-gases/priestley.aspx>.
Darwin, Charles. "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION;." 1859. Gutenberg. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm>.
—. "The Voyage of the Beagle." 1839. The Gutenberg Project. 17 06 2012. <http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2629009>.
Ede, A and L B Cormack. A History of Science in society: From Philosophy to Utility. 2nd. 2012.
Furgueson, H C. "A Decade of Dark Energy." Space Telescope Science Institute Symposium. Baltimore, MD, USA: Space Telescope Science Institute, 2005.
Mind Tools. "Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management." 2013. Mind Tools. <http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_Taylor.htm>.
National Science Foundation. A Tour of the Cell. USA: National Science Foundation, 1990.
Nickles, Thomas. "Scientific Revolutions." 2013. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/>.
Safety Lamp. "Alexander von Humboldt." 2014. Safety Lamp. <http://www3.telus.net/~pcain/Lamps/bios/vonbio.htm>.
Taylor, Frederick W. "Frederick W. Taylor: The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911." 1911. Fordham University. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html>.
The Lunar Society. "The original Lunar Society ." n.d. The Lunar Society. <http://www.lunarsociety.org.uk/about/the-original-lunar-society>.