Question
Who are some academic iconoclasts?
Answer
Among more modern ones, I like:
Jon Doyle and Elisha Sacks in AI, they certainly smashed some idols in "Prolegomena to Any Future Qualitative Physics."
Fred Hoyle and his gang kept up a spirited defense of the Steady State theory against the Big Bang theory for decades, and there's a minority still holding out. I am not an astrophysicist, so I don't know if that camp has merit, but in general I approve of anyone who becomes a bugbear for the mainstream consensus. Keeps 'em on their toes at the very least.
In fundamental physics, Peter Woit and Lee Smolin have each authored a book criticizing superstring theory. To a lesser extent, Roger Penrose is also in their camp, favoring something called loop quantum gravity I believe. Again, I only know of pop-science level arguments, but I like what they say.
The behavioral economics guys USED to be the iconoclasts, but are now the mainstream, so I am REALLY glad that a major name has now started taking the hammer to their idols: Gerd Gigrenhizer at the Max Planck institute (author of "gut feelings") is starting to criticize their self-satisfied smugness.
Steven Pinker is establishment in his home field of linguistics, but an iconoclast in the liberal arts, where he is among the more eloquent critics of the blank-slate foundations of postmodern liberal arts.
Among self-styled iconoclasts that I DON'T like, Stephen Wolfram leads the pack. I think A New Kind of Science is a monument to hubris and mostly empty of serious intellectual merit. I heard him speak soon after the book was released, and was shocked by just how unpleasant he was. He was like Charlie Sheen with his Tiger Blood meltdown. Made me sad, since I really liked his earlier work on automata and Mathematica is a huge contribution.
I also do not think that TV-science grand-standing is the same as iconoclasm. TV science grand-standing is often very conservative, but pretty mainstream stuff. At the risk of offending a lot of people, I'd classify Nicholas Negroponte in that category.
There are tons of historical iconoclasts of course, as well as more modern obscure internal rebels and out-of-institution rebels, who are less visible.
An example of an obscure internal iconoclast in my field is Hans Witsenhausen. Very few people have heard of him, but IMO, he's more important to the conceptual development of control theory than mainstream figures like Kalman.
By the way, there is a book on this sort of thing, Iconoclast by Gregory Berns, on the neuroscience of being an iconoclast.
Jon Doyle and Elisha Sacks in AI, they certainly smashed some idols in "Prolegomena to Any Future Qualitative Physics."
Fred Hoyle and his gang kept up a spirited defense of the Steady State theory against the Big Bang theory for decades, and there's a minority still holding out. I am not an astrophysicist, so I don't know if that camp has merit, but in general I approve of anyone who becomes a bugbear for the mainstream consensus. Keeps 'em on their toes at the very least.
In fundamental physics, Peter Woit and Lee Smolin have each authored a book criticizing superstring theory. To a lesser extent, Roger Penrose is also in their camp, favoring something called loop quantum gravity I believe. Again, I only know of pop-science level arguments, but I like what they say.
The behavioral economics guys USED to be the iconoclasts, but are now the mainstream, so I am REALLY glad that a major name has now started taking the hammer to their idols: Gerd Gigrenhizer at the Max Planck institute (author of "gut feelings") is starting to criticize their self-satisfied smugness.
Steven Pinker is establishment in his home field of linguistics, but an iconoclast in the liberal arts, where he is among the more eloquent critics of the blank-slate foundations of postmodern liberal arts.
Among self-styled iconoclasts that I DON'T like, Stephen Wolfram leads the pack. I think A New Kind of Science is a monument to hubris and mostly empty of serious intellectual merit. I heard him speak soon after the book was released, and was shocked by just how unpleasant he was. He was like Charlie Sheen with his Tiger Blood meltdown. Made me sad, since I really liked his earlier work on automata and Mathematica is a huge contribution.
I also do not think that TV-science grand-standing is the same as iconoclasm. TV science grand-standing is often very conservative, but pretty mainstream stuff. At the risk of offending a lot of people, I'd classify Nicholas Negroponte in that category.
There are tons of historical iconoclasts of course, as well as more modern obscure internal rebels and out-of-institution rebels, who are less visible.
An example of an obscure internal iconoclast in my field is Hans Witsenhausen. Very few people have heard of him, but IMO, he's more important to the conceptual development of control theory than mainstream figures like Kalman.
By the way, there is a book on this sort of thing, Iconoclast by Gregory Berns, on the neuroscience of being an iconoclast.