Let's take Einstein's case. He wasn't even a professor. He didn't start from an academic strong point. When he published his first papers on his relativity theory, he was working as a clerk in a patent office in Switzerland. Before anyone acknowledged his view, he found in front of him a wall of opposition from all the physicists who wanted to stick to Newton's officially accepted theories. Isn't this challenging authority?
Sadly, it seems that many science branches did this error: another one I recall was A.Avogadro, who faced a strong resistence to his theories by his colleagues. It took years before that the chemicals of that time to accept the evidence of his results.
This is an excerpt from a page devoted to Avogadro:
In order to understand the contribution that Avogadro made, we must
consider some of the ideas being developed at this time. Chemistry was just beginning to become an exact science. The Law of Definite Proportions and the Law of Multiple Proportions were well accepted by 1808, at which time John Dalton published his New System of Chemical Philosophy.
Dalton proposed that the atoms of each element had a characteristic
atomic weight, and that it was atoms that were the combining units in
chemical reactions. Dalton had no method of measuring atomic weights
unambiguously, so made the incorrect assumption that in the most common
compound between two elements, there was one atom of each.
. . .
In 1811, Avogadro published an article in Journal de physique
that clearly drew the distinction between the molecule and the atom. He
pointed out that Dalton had confused the concepts of atoms and molecules.
The "atoms" of nitrogen and oxygen are in reality "molecules" containing two
atoms each. Thus two molecules of hydrogen can combine with one molecule of
oxygen to produce two molecules of water.
. . .
The work of Avogadro was almost completely neglected until it was
forcefully presented by Stanislao Cannizarro at the Karlsruhe
Conference in 1860. ... The
reason for the earlier neglect of Avogadro's work was probably the deeply
rooted conviction that chemical combination occurred by virtue of an
affinity between unlike elements. ... The idea that two identical atoms of hydrogen might
combine into the compound molecular hydrogen was abhorrent to the chemical
philosophy of the early nineteenth century.
Surely, the "rule being broken" is such a brake to knowledge and research in general. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I was sure you simply picked the wrong example :-)
The very nature of Perl to be like natural language--inconsistant and full of dwim and special cases--makes it impossible to know it all without simply memorizing the documentation (which is not complete or totally correct anyway).
--John M. Dlugosz