>>11604958>There were 21st century physicists whose work disproved conceptions held for centuries.Do you have an example? Not calling you a liar but I have to be sure you even contradict my claim in the first place
Here's a relevant example of what I'm talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_batteryIt's been readily admitted by colleagues that these battery claims would be dismissed if they weren't made by goodenough and that it rides on his amazing reputation, which means one of two bad things are going on.
1) The claim is sound despite being hard to believe and contradicting the understanding of other scientists, and if it were presented by a lesser known scientist it would be dismissed.
2) The claim is unsound, but was received with unwarranted confidence because it came from a scientist with a high reputation.
Both of these are bad because dispassionate analysis of methodology and trying it before you knock it are subverted by a popularity contest.
And you can't say when this battery would eventually challenge the orthodoxy because if the scientific community dismisses the battery, you can't find a financier or industry talent to develop it and everyone regards it as another water fueled car.
