Title: The Formulation of New Theories

Subtitle: Starting modern scientific revolutions through publishing

Introduction

How do new scientific disciplines emerge? What are the theoretical foundations for a theory of science? Fundamental questions about the methodology of the creation of new scientific fields will be outlined below. It must be clarified when something can be counted as a new science at all and which normative principles underlie such decisions.

What is science?

There are central foundations that must be met in order for a field to be counted as science. One of them is its falsifiability¹. Popper (1959) offers a canonical interpretation, an understanding which has been accepted as the standard. It must also be said, that the distinction between science and pseudo-science, is what is called the testing of a hypothesis. The basic operation of new sciences is therefore the methodological approach of checking its scientific legitimacy according to its scientific norms and standards.

If this seems paradoxical, it quite certainly is. In the constantly changing and evolving field of science as a whole, new theories emerge like clockwork. Just as reality evolves through feedback loops², science undergoes constant changes³. Each scientific discipline operates within an already accepted framework — a consensus, but no absolute truth. What methods are used to test a new theory? These methods have been proven to be quite practical and useful for the understanding of the universe and life itself.

Paradigm shifts…

The formation and structure of new academic fields sometimes also means altering the configuration of other already established sciences. Such undergoings might also have a serious impact on the identity of science itself. Yet, the fundamental principles of science will always stay the same, despite the emergence of new fields.

The consensus is what makes them resilient against perturbations. The consequence of this contradiction is that we cannot therefore say what could have been due to the lacking of what we do not have. This of course extends beyond the previous theoretical position into — what we are now seeing as — something meta-physical.

A serious shift of paradigms only happens when new evidence renders canonical interpretations as false. That is to say, only when it is accepted as consensus, then consensus will change. Only after the scientific community accepts change, the new framework gains consensus. It is therefore a crucial step in the emergence of new scientific fields, that the scientific community and the consensus can be proven wrong.

Proven wrong?

A modern scientist will find himself not arguing with ignorant religious people, but with a scientific community — sometimes also quite ignorant. To reshape the collective framework of our understanding, one needs to have enough evidence to support his own claim. Sometimes that might not even be enough on its own!

The acceptance of a new paradigm hinges on its adoption by the majority of scientists, reshaping the collective framework of understanding. — ChatGPT

---

The intellectual discourse on the emergence of a new kind of science must therefore shift from an adversarial to collaborative, that is to say, only when other people feel included in the development of this new field, they will accept it as such. We want to have them on the same page before we actually prove them wrong. One cannot immediately start with the proofs — one has to build trust and rapport first⁴.

Building trust

Writing books and articles

By writing scientific articles and academic books — in accordance to established citation practices — one can foster their reputation as an honest scientist. When readers can see the scientific methodology of the author, it will build a foundational pillar in the establishment of intellectual and academic integrity.

Writing with integrity

By writing with intellectual rigor and ethical integrity, one can present data with precision to demonstrate transparency and reliability of one’s scientific theory. By adhering to the established standards of building evidence, one avoids overstatement and ensures credibility. Within the time, the credibility of one’s work will be established and this results in more confidents from academic peers.

Collaborating with others

Collaborating with other researchers, especially the ones who already have their scientific credibility established, can improve the trustworthiness of your scientific findings. Not only that, but including different perspectives into your work can give a more diverse view on the topic and acknowledging alternative viewpoints — which is especially important in scientific literature.

Publishing fast?

The academic publishing process is often paved with barriers, which are not only limited to the high costs and long review timelines, but also institutional bias. Well established researchers who have already published in such a journal often have greater success at being published again. Gatekeeping⁵ is the major problem here; not in science as an evidence based from of establishing new scientific theories, but as the scientific institution — again built up by the major league of the scientific community.

Reforming these structures is essential for equitable knowledge production. — ChatGPT

---

While peer review is still, of course, one of the major influences in seeing a work as scientific, open-access free distribution platforms like arXiv remain highly relevant. It improves communication among the scientific community and provides researchers the opportunity to spread their ideas among a global audience quickly. These articles also often end up in academic journals anyway, which makes it a so called pre-print repository.

Final thought

Start writing your book!

Focusing on creating long form content like books can increase one’s reputation in the scientific community. Self-publishing is also emerging as a legitimate way to share one’s theories among a larger group of readers without having to deal with the barriers of peer-review journals. However, long term credibility needs more than just writing one or several books.

The content needs to be sound in reasoning, backed by more than enough evidence and well written intellectually. Also engaging critically with what literature is already available is an important step in establishing one’s credibility, because it shows that the author has a thorough understanding of the current state of knowledge, before giving rise to new theories.

Sources

1. Popper, K. (1959): The Logic of Scientific Discovery ↩︎
2. Langan, C.M. (2002): The Art of Knowing ↩︎
3. Kuhn, T. (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ↩︎
4. Perloff, R.M. (2023): The Dynamics of Persuasion ↩︎
5. Ellis, P. (2020): The Problems With Science Journals Trying to Be Gatekeepers – and Some Solutions ↩︎