Originally posted by humy
You make some pretty vague assertions along with a question so vague as to be unanswerable .
Also, what kind of "facts" are you referring to here?
Do you mean "data" by "facts"?
Or theories that have already been empirically proven?
Or deduced theorems i.e. those that have been deductively proven?
Or whatever you personally believe to be the "facts" ...[text shortened]... and meaningless question.
And "popularity" by whom?
I first started thinking about this when someone on this forum said that I would not convince anybody of my position because I was arrogant and disliked on this forum. I immediately remembered the NOVA program about Everett and how a physicist (I don't remember his name) had done work that showed support for the many worlds theory and was overlooked, but nobody wanted to believe the guy because he was arrogant and few people liked him. While I was looking for the guy's name I stumbled onto more interesting assertions of how popularity is a factor.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"A DIFFICULT BIRTH
To step back a moment, initially Everett's theory wasn't well accepted when it was first published in 1957, is that right?
No, it wasn't. First of all, when his dissertation was printed in 1957, it was highly edited from his original version. All the colorful language was taken out. But physicists looked at it and a lot of them thought, "This is crazy." [Physicist Richard] Feynman went on record as saying, in essence, "Well, this is not possible because there can't be multiple universes."
However, people didn't attack his theory publicly, because it's very hard to attack Everett's logic. They did attack it privately. For instance, in 1956, before it was published, Wheeler and Everett sent a copy of the dissertation to Bohr in Copenhagen to see if he would agree that it was true. It wasn't likely that he would, because if he did agree he'd have to admit that he'd been wrong for decades about everything else.
As it happened, Bohr was pretty polite. He didn't attack it himself, but he assigned his acolytes to attack Everett, and actually for decades they took every opportunity they could to say that Everett was stupid, that his theory didn't work, that Everett didn't understand quantum mechanics, stuff like that."
If Bohr actually wanted others to put down Everett's theory and call him stupid as this article claims it makes me wonder why. If Everett was so wrong why would Bohr resort to such a thing? You would think the only reason Bohr would do that is if he felt threatened by the many world's theory. Later in the article it says some physicists secretly thought Everett's theory had merit but were afraid to come forward because Bohr was so respected at that time. Whoever wrote this article seems to think popularity is a factor in the short term.