Intellectual Debates

If you give the same question to a physicist, a philosopher, a biologist and a historian and they will all tackle the problem very differently. This is simply due to the fact that each field has a very different toolset that is used for working on problems. I think it is very important to recognize this difference when you begin an intellectual debate between different people from very different backgrounds. It is very important to stay clear about what question has been asked. Most specifically how each point being argued fits into your strategy to answer the question.

I think a cause for intellectual debates to turn into arguments is when both parties fail to recognize that they are not arguing the same question. I also think arguments develop when both parties think their way to think is "better". There is no "better" way of thinking about a problem. There is no "better" toolset to work with. Each approach is unique and quite interesting. So, it is important to listen to a person with an alternative view. You may actually learn something new.


image credit : warren carl stone

Crack Not

image credit : alphacoder

If you are in academia, you would have heard the term "crackpot" in reference to some seemingly wacky idea. The term is used rather dismissively towards the individuals coming up with some idea. "Oh that's a crackpot theory."  But did we ever stop to think what that really is? Did we ever stop to questions what these individuals may be attempting to do? In my opinion, I think that the "crackpots" are actually pursuing a creative attempt to push the boundaries of knowledge given the limited amount of information available to them.

When jumping into a particular field, you spend months and years trying to understand the language of the field. You learn the jargon and start to understand a common school of thought. You do this for a very long time, before one tries to push the boundaries of their field and forward knowledge. In my opinion, what this system inadvertently does is make the people on the "inside" dismiss those who are on the "outside". We stick up our noses at anyone who misuses our jargon and tries to extend an idea in a way that isn't quite right. We stick up our noses at the someone trying to make connections when it may not be a viable one.

However, what gets left out of many books is the reality of discovery. Most discoveries were little "accidents". Once this accident happened it sparked curiosity upon the person who made the mistake. They questioned why this happened and sought after finding a reason how this could happen. Upon further examination, they were able to validate that something might not be wrong with what they did. So what is the next thing they do? Share it with the world.

If what they found was correct, it would take a while for the world to accept it. It takes a while for paradigms to shift. It takes a while for a school of thought to accept a tangential off shoot of the mainstream. And what exactly is that off shoot called colloquially? "Going out on a limb." And if you would like to say it dismissively, you could call it a "crackpot theory".

My proposal would be to listen more and try to understand what attempts are being made to extend the current ideas. It is possible that they might be able to see something you can't and make connections that you wouldn't be able to see. So, listen. You might actually learn something.

Hmm what is this weird noise source?

Here is the deal. At your job in the 60's at Bell labs, your boss gives you a new device that you need to understand everything about. The device is the new Holmdel Horn Antenna which is a detector used to measure a very faint signal that bounces off echo ballons. What you do for the next few years is "characterize your detector", just a fancy way of saying that you study the way the detector works in excruciating detail.

You begin by turning on your detector and studying how much power actually hits your detector. Next, you ask the question where does this power come from? You run a series of tests to understand the signal on your detector. You find that sometimes the power readings are too high or too low and you ask yourself why. You find that some are due to the rising and the setting of the sun. You find that some power fluctuations are due to how hot the actual detector is. You find teeny power fluctuations due to the changes in the seasons throughout the year. And this is what you spend your time doing hunting for noise sources. Power fluctuations due to anything other than the signal you are looking for are considered noise sources.

This was the exact job of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. They spent their time in the early 1960's running tests on their detector to identify noise sources. This detector operates in the radio regime of the electromagnetic spectrum (more on that later). That means their device is sensitive to long wavelength light.

The mystery arises when Penzias and Wilson can not identify why their detector is reading too much power. They go back to their calculations over and over again and can not figure out WHY this is there. They are stumped. They think and think and think about where this extra power could be coming from. They figured out it wasn't the earth, it wasn't the sun, they did research to find if it was in our galaxy and didn't think so. So what do you do?

Call a friend and ask for help.

Wilson & Penzias

Bernie Burke

Penzias and Wilson got and the phone with a friend of theirs at MIT named Bernie Burke. They asked him if he knew of any extra-galactic radio sources that may be contributing to their signal. Burke replied by saying that he read a pre-print article by Jim Peebles discussing that there may be left over radiation from the early universe. This could potentially be what you are seeing. Why don't you give Robert Dicke from Princeton a call? He has made a prediction about where we should see this signal and is gathering a team to go detect it.

Robert Dicke

Penzias and Wilson got excited because this could be a very important discovery. At the time, there was a HUGE debate in the scientific community about whether the universe was expanding or staying still. There was no experimental evidence to tell you one way or another.


Following their friend's advice, Penzias gave Dicke a call and asked about what he thought of their findings. Dicke sent over Peebles' article for a read. After a few phone exchanges, Robert Dicke, Jim Peebles and Dave Wilkinson made their way over from Princeton to the detector in New Jersey.

Jim Peebles

After visiting the site, both groups spent some time working out whether or not this detection was THE detection they were looking for. They decided to publish separate papers in the same Physical Revue Letters edition. Peebles, Dicke and Wilkinson's paper proposed that if the universe had a very hot beginning and expanded over time, then left over light will have cooled into the radio regime where we could detect it. Penzias and Wilson's paper discussed their apparatus and the methods along with their measurement. They reference Peebles, Dicke and Wilkinson as having the proper interpretation of their result.

Dave Wilkinson

So let's just stop for a minute and recap. You went to work to characterize a detector that is looking for faint radio signal bouncing off echo balloons. During the process of trying to understand all of your noise sources, you run into a puzzle you can't solve. You ask a friend for their opinion on what it could be. They happened to read a paper that offers a suggestion on what how to interpret what you see. And by you picking up the phone to confirm this, you establish a relationship with some of the greatest scientists of all time. Before you know it, you and your co-worker have just stumbled across arguably the most important experimental evidence for cosmology. Your detection is how we have confirmation that we live in a universe that began from a hot big bang.

That is pretty cool.

image credits : wikipedia