Acceptance, Rejection, and the Tightening Feedback Loop

Wayne Tyson

• Responses to this Article
• Literature Cited

Published: February 13, 2002

Does Holling (2001) really mean to say that novel ideas are only rarely resisted or ignored? It seems to me that most, if not all, novel ideas are not only resisted and ignored but also vigorously opposed; this applies to "small" ideas as well as "large" ones.

Although I intend to imply no inconsistency here, it would seem that challenges in the form of "needed skepticism" are essential and must be distinguished from arbitrary or turf-related resistance and rejection. Fundamental distinctions like this need to be cleared up as part of establishing adaptive, resilient conditions for true intellectual inquiry. I say "true" intellectual inquiry to distinguish it from "pseudo" and "quasi" and from the ego-driven impulse that plagues us all. All the more reasons why it is vital that first a small group, then a larger and larger group, "swear eternal" internal "vigilance over," for starters, this form of tyranny over the mind of [wo]man.

On a positive note and, incidentally, a comment on the utility of Conservation Ecology as well, the tightening of the feedback loop by accelerated and broadened communication may reduce arbitrary resistance, if for no better reason than the self-preservation value of getting aboard sooner rather than later. Researchers can thus spare themselves the embarrassment of being associated with the discarded paradigm in full view of the celebrants on the newly launched one. One of the practical skills involved in launching a new paradigm, large or small, would seem to be the ability to help the supplanted hierarchy save face, and even welcome them on board if they are willing.

Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a comment, follow this link. To read comments already accepted, follow this link.

Holling, C. S. 2001. Conservation Ecology, 2001: a journal for both authors and readers. Conservation Ecology 5(1): 20. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol5/iss1/art20