Date: 18 Nov 2012
Within a Nutshell (The Mental Roots of Human Insusceptibility to New Ideas)
- Armen E. Petrosyan
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
An attempt is undertaken to reveal the conceptual grounds of the opposition and resistance to innovations. The origins and evolution of the views on the reception of new ideas, during the last half a century, have been traced, and the conclusion drawn that the social and personal dimensions are usually overemphasized while the mental ones kept in the shadow. Meanwhile, just the latter play the key role in the relation to the new by the community as a whole. Human mind passes anything through the prism of the concepts in which experience is accumulated and consolidated. And new ideas spring out of the same concepts combined otherwise. The conceptual background of the epoch presets the framework and tendencies of the common knowledge that, in its turn, being learned by people, determines the horizon of their mental outlook. Just that horizon turns, ultimately, into a frontier between accessible and inaccessible ideas. The closer an idea approaches to the frontier, the farther it moves from the scope of the contemporaries’ understanding. As to the insights having broken through the horizon, they become “invisible” and “inappreciable” to the overwhelming majority of the contemporaries. These persons are incapable of getting out from the gripe of the common knowledge as the force field of the epoch’s mentality. The revolutionary innovations are doomed to denial and nonacceptance. Their inner charge is incompatible with the conceptual background of the epoch. Nevertheless, albeit rejected, they exert not evident—indirect and marginal—but tectonic influence on knowledge and mentality and render, therethrough, great benefits even to those communities that turn them down.
Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134(3479), 596–602.CrossRef
Beveridge, W. I. B. (1957). The art of scientific investigation. New York: W.W. Norton.
Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists’ and students’ resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095–1100.CrossRef
Cohen, B. (1992). What Columbus “saw” in 1492. Scientific American, (12), 100–106.
Cole, S. (1970). Professional standing and the reception of scientific discoveries. The American Journal of Sociology, 76(2), 286–306.CrossRef
Gehlen, A. (1980). Man in the age of technology. New York: L. Berger.
Goethe, J. W. (1925). Saemtliche Werke (Bd. XVI); Naturwissenschafliche Schriften (Bd. I). Leipzig: Insel-Verlag.
Gold, T. (1989). New ideas in science. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3(2), 103–112.
Hackett, H., Andersen, M., et al. (1957). Understanding and being understood. New York: Longmans & Co.
Harvey, W. (1847). The works. London: The Sydenham Society.
Hook, E. B. (2002). A background to prematurity and resistance to “discovery”. In E. B. Hook (Ed.), Prematurity in scientific discovery: On resistance and neglect (pp. 3–21). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Foreword. In P. Hoyningen-Huene (Ed.), Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science (pp. XI–XIII). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leibnitz, G. W. (1908). Philosophical works. New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor.
Lieu, S., & Montserrat, D. (Eds.). (1996). From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine views. A source history. New York: Routledge.
Lillehei, C. W. (1995). New ideas and their acceptance. As it has related to preservation of chordae tendinea and certain other discoveries. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease, Suppl. 2, 106–114.
Loewenfeld, L. (1912). About stupidity: A survey of the spectrum of human narrow-mindedness. Odessa: A. Kohnelman.
Lombroso, C., & Laschi, R. (1890). Il delitto politico et le revoluzioni: In rapporto al diritto, all’antropologia criminale ed alla scienza di governo. Torino: Fratelli Boca.
Mach, E. (1911). History and root of the principle of the conservation of energy. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Mathew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRef
Notestein, W. (1911). A history of witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718. Washington: The American Historical Association.
Ogburn, W. I. (1928). Social change with respect to culture and original nature. New York: The Viking Press.
Oppenheimer, J. R. (1954). Science and the common understanding. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Pliny (1961). Natural history (vol. II). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, London: William Heinemann.
Polanyi, M. (1963). The potential theory of adsorption: Authority in science has its uses and its dangers. Science, 141(3585), 1010–1013.CrossRef
Russell, M. C. (2008). Scientific resistance to research, training, and utilization of eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy in treating post-war disorders. Social Science & Medicine, 67(11), 1737–1746.CrossRef
Schopenhauer, A. (1903). On the fourfold root of sufficient reason and on the will in nature. London: George Bell and Sons.
Simplicius. (1882). In Aristotelis physicorum libros quattuor priores commentaria. Berolini: G. Reimer.CrossRef
Snell, O. (1891). Hexenprozesse und Geistesstörung. München: J.F. Lehmann.
Spengler, O. (1918). The decline of the West: Vol. I. Form and actuality. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Stent, G. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, (12), 84–93.
von Helmholtz, H. (1896). Vorträge und Reden: Zweite Band. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
Williams, H. (1865). Superstitions of witchcraft. London: Longman.
Willis, R. (1878). William Harvey: A history of the discovery of the circulation of the blood. London: C. Kegan Paul.
Zeldovich, J. B., & Khlopov, M. Y. (1988). The drama of ideas in cognition of the nature (particles, fields, charges). Moscow: Science (Russian).
- Within a Nutshell (The Mental Roots of Human Insusceptibility to New Ideas)
Journal of the Knowledge Economy
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- New ideas
- Conceptual background
- Grading of innovations
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Institute for Business Consulting, 170008, P/O box 863, Tver, Russia