I Know That I Know Nothing
Combat Hubris by Cultivating Maxwell's "Thoroughly Conscious Ignorance"
When I attended the Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC) in 2014, the organizers provided attendees a memento - a hand-painted earthenware dish with the motto, “I know that I know nothing.”
I confess, I was a bit offended by this. There I was, a seasoned electromagnetic professional with a Ph.D. in physics and dozens of conference papers and patents to my credit. Who was this professional colleague to be implying that “I know nothing?” How on Earth was this sentiment anything noble or worthy of aspiration?
I was wrong.
I learned my lesson.
Because that was about the time, ten years ago, now, that I finally put the pieces together. I found some almost trivially simple aspects of electromagnetism that had been overlooked by everyone: from Maxwell to his immediate successors, geniuses like Heinrich Hertz, Oliver Heaviside, Oliver Lodge, and George Fitzgerald. They had many of the same pieces of the puzzle I did, but none of them put the pieces together correctly. Some of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics came tantalizingly close, particularly de Broglie and Einstein, but by and large the basics of how electromagnetism (and quantum mechanics, also) work have been overlooked and ignored for well over a century.
I suppose my reaction could have been arrogance - how smart I was to see something that eluded all those amazing antecedents. Instead I was humbled by the recognition not only of my own ignorance, but also of the ignorance of my distinguished predecessors.
This is a lesson every physicist and engineer needs to learn, also. I know I am sometimes critical of my colleagues in particular and my profession in general for having overlooked concepts that I now recognize are simple and obvious. If you feel I have given improper and inappropriate vent to my frustrations, if you have taken offense at my remarks and my attitude, please forgive me, and realize that if today’s physicists and engineers have been and remain blindly ignorant of simple truths, surely I am among the worst of the offenders.
I obtained “the most accurate acquaintance with the facts of nature,” to use Maxwell’s phrasing. My doctoral research on the exponentially decaying dipole demonstrated conclusively that point charges emitting point photons was an untenable physics model. For two decades, I was exposed to example after example after example in which fields did one thing and energy did another. In example after example after example, it should have been blindingly obvious that fields and energy had to be different and distinct, albeit complementary phenomena. Time and time and time again, I observed fields go one way and energy go a different way, and yet I did not see what was right in front of my nose. Soon, I will be sharing more of these examples with you. Then, you will have the opportunity to do better than I did.
Is it arrogant of me to think that I am now right, and all my colleagues, even those far more distinguished and respected than I, all those who believe the currently accepted wisdom of point charges emitting and absorbing point photons, are all wrong?
Perhaps it’s true that makes me arrogant.
It is more arrogant, however, to think that the currently accepted paradigm could not possibly be wrong, merely because it is accepted by an overwhelming consensus of practitioners.
There was a time when the consensus was that electricity and magnetism were some kind of static atmosphere, localized effluvia, or an orb of virtue around an electrified or magnetic body. The discovery of current proved that consensus was wrong.
There was a time when the consensus was that there were two kinds of electricity: “vitreous,” obtained through friction from glass, and “resinous,” obtained through friction from amber. Franklin and others demonstrated instead that there is only one kind of electricity which may exist in surplus or in deficit in a physical body. They thus proved that the “two-fluid” consensus was wrong.
There was a time when the consensus converged upon electricity and magnetism being an inexplicable action-at-a-distance capable of mathematical calculation and analysis but without any coherent physical model for interaction. The success of Faraday’s field model proved that consensus was wrong.
There was a time when a similar (mostly engineering) consensus held that electricity was some kind of fluid running through wires. The success of the Poynting-Heaviside theory proved that consensus was wrong.
I shouldn’t even have to appeal to relativity and the various interpretations of quantum mechanics to make my point.
Because every significant advance in science, EVERY significant advance, without exception, arises from the ashes of an erroneous and widely-held consensus. I know… this is not an easy truth to take to heart. All our most distinguished researchers, all our most beloved teachers, all our most respected authorities.
They are all wrong. All of them.
No, not in each and every aspect of their theories, teachings, and beliefs. However, in critical aspects, on certain key points, in one way or another, they are all wrong. You are wrong, too. So, surely, am I. The great physicist Richard Feynman (1918-1988) defined “science” as “the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Amen.
“I don’t know.” The humility to admit one’s own ignorance is a prerequisite to be a successful scientist. “I know that I know nothing.” Embrace that. Take it to heart. Do your best to start with a blank slate. Discard your preconceptions. And only then can you build on a firm foundation. This is why James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) said that a thoroughly conscious ignorance is the prelude to every real advance in knowledge.
“I am wrong.” These are not words of weakness. They are a proposition of power. Not only is it often true, but also acknowledging this simple precept is the prerequisite to self-improvement and enlightenment. A relentless dedication to the truth in defiance of social norms may not be for everyone. For a scientist of integrity, however, it is essential.
The fundamental challenge facing any scientist who desires to do creative and original work is figuring out exactly how and why the scientific consensus is wrong at any particular moment in intellectual history. What are the key points on which we are all ignorant, where did we go wrong, and how can we do better?
Best-selling political philosopher, Vox Day, writes in SJWs Always Double Down, of what he terms “gammas” in the socio-sexual hierarchy. A gamma is marked - among other attributes - by an inability to say two things. The first is “I don’t know.” The second is “I am wrong.”
There are an awful lot of gammas in science.
Unable to acknowledge their own ignorance and their own errors, gammas will bitterly cling to a stale consensus and faulty thinking rather than embrace new, original, and controversial thinking. That’s why another great physicist, Max Planck (1858–1947), declared that science advances one funeral at a time.
So, where has today’s consensus gone off the track? How do electromagnetism and quantum mechanics really work, and where did physics go wrong?
Follow Maxwell’s advice, do your best to cultivate a thoroughly conscious ignorance, join me in reviewing the many historical models of electromagnetism, and perhaps the funeral over which science advances next time won’t have to be yours.
Next time: 4.2 Early Models of Electromagnetism
Follow Online:
You may follow me online in other places as well:
Telegram: 𝔸𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕔𝕫𝕒𝕣'𝕤 𝔸𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕞
Gab: @aetherczar
Twitter: @aetherczar
Amazon: Hans G. Schantz
My previous attitude on the question, "How wrong is science?" would have been far closer to Asimov's in this essay. He argues (correctly) that science is usually mostly right.
I argue science is always partly wrong - and that’s the better perspective in today’s era of scientific hubris. Scientists who want to make significant discoveries need to cultivate Maxwell's thoroughly conscious ignorance and try to figure out where and how science is wrong.
https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
My experience is that the most arrogant are most often those who defend the status quo ante.
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince