Skip to main content
Log in

Within a Nutshell (The Mental Roots of Human Insusceptibility to New Ideas)

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134(3479), 596–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beveridge, W. I. B. (1957). The art of scientific investigation. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists’ and students’ resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehlen, A. (1980). Man in the age of technology. New York: L. Berger.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, H., Andersen, M., et al. (1957). Understanding and being understood. New York: Longmans & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, W. (1847). The works. London: The Sydenham Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenfeld, L. (1912). About stupidity: A survey of the spectrum of human narrow-mindedness. Odessa: A. Kohnelman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. (1911). History and root of the principle of the conservation of energy. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Mathew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notestein, W. (1911). A history of witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718. Washington: The American Historical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogburn, W. I. (1928). Social change with respect to culture and original nature. New York: The Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, J. R. (1954). Science and the common understanding. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopenhauer, A. (1903). On the fourfold root of sufficient reason and on the will in nature. London: George Bell and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simplicius. (1882). In Aristotelis physicorum libros quattuor priores commentaria. Berolini: G. Reimer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, O. (1891). Hexenprozesse und Geistesstörung. München: J.F. Lehmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spengler, O. (1918). The decline of the West: Vol. I. Form and actuality. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. (1865). Superstitions of witchcraft. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, R. (1878). William Harvey: A history of the discovery of the circulation of the blood. London: C. Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeldovich, J. B., & Khlopov, M. Y. (1988). The drama of ideas in cognition of the nature (particles, fields, charges). Moscow: Science (Russian).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armen E. Petrosyan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petrosyan, A.E. Within a Nutshell (The Mental Roots of Human Insusceptibility to New Ideas). J Knowl Econ 6, 157–189 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0127-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0127-2

Keywords

Navigation