Why Scientists are Expert Problem Solvers (E15)
And why they sometimes falter, and how science can solve that problem
“I have no special talent. I am only patiently curious.” — Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
E15 is the 15th in a series of related but self-contained essays. E15:
Explains why scientists are expert problem solvers,
Provides evidence demonstrating that they sometimes falter, and
Proposes a solution to that problem.
The essential process:
Scientists are expert problem solvers because they repeatedly apply the “essential process” described below:
The scientific community:
Identifies a critical problem, and
Establishes criteria for estimating a solution’s value.
Different theorists propose different hypothetical solutions.
The scientific community:
Lists every proposal, and
Estimates the relative value of the listed proposals.
The proposal with the highest estimated value is tested until either:
The hypothesis is refuted and the next proposal with the highest estimated value is tested, or
The problem is solved.
Problem statement:
Scientists sometimes falter because of the “meta problem” described below:
The meta problem occurs when — instead of following Step 3a — the scientific community reflexively eliminates one or more proposals, and then not every proposal is listed for consideration.
FS1 through FS7 are:
Seven famous stories from the history of science, and
Evidence of the meta problem.
The seven stories are followed by a statement of the meta problem’s root cause, a detailed explanation of the above problem statement, and a testable interpretation of the evidence.
FS1:
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865), a Hungarian physician, solved a critical problem — an appallingly high maternal mortality rate — after he was appointed to a leadership position in an Austrian obstetrical clinic in 1846. He implemented a handwashing protocol in mid-May of 1847 requiring clinic physicians — who might be coming from autopsying corpses — to wash their hands before assisting in labor and delivery.
The April rate of 18.3% meant that roughly 1 in 5 birthing mothers died. The respective June, July, and August rates of 2.2%, 1.2%, and 1.9% meant less than 1 in 50.
The handwashing protocol quickly earned widespread acceptance after Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) confirmed germ theory in 1867, and then Semmelweis earned the posthumous “savior of mothers” title.
FS1 is evidence of a 2-decade-long meta problem occurrence beginning in 1847. The following is from Wikipedia, s.v., “Ignaz Semmelweis,” November 20, 2025:1
Despite his research, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time, and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it.
His findings earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory of disease … and (English pioneer of antiseptic surgery) Joseph Lister (1827-1912), acting on Pasteur’s research, practised and operated using hygienic methods with great success.
The words, “his ideas were rejected by the medical community” and “some doctors were offended at the suggestion … and mocked him for it” demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated the handwashing hypothesis, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
FS2:
John Snow (1813-1858), an English physician, was a leader in the development of anesthesia and medical hygiene when — in an 1849 paper — he suggested that cholera is contracted from the water supply. He is widely acknowledged as one of the founders of modern epidemiology because of a more detailed treatise published in 1855 incorporating the results of his investigation into London’s 1854 cholera epidemic.
FS2 is evidence of a 16-year-long meta problem occurrence beginning in 1849. The following is from Wikipedia, s.v., “John Snow,” November 20, 2025:2
(Government) officials … rejected Snow’s theory.
It was not until 1866 that (British epidemiologist) William Farr (1807-1883), one of Snow’s chief opponents, realised the validity of his diagnosis when investigating another outbreak of cholera … and issued immediate orders that unboiled water was not to be drunk.
The words “officials … rejected Snow’s theory” and “It was not until 1866 that … the validity of his diagnosis” was realized demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated the water supply hypothesis, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
FS3:
Alice Catherine Evans (1881-1975), an American microbiologist and researcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, published a paper in 1917 suggesting that consuming unpasteurized dairy products could lead to a dangerous bacterial infection.
Evans was elected the first woman president of the Society of American Bacteriologists in 1928, and pasteurization became a common practice in the 1930s because of her research.
FS3 is evidence of a decade-long meta problem occurrence beginning in 1917. The following is from Ranker.com, s.v., “Historical Figures Who Were Initially Called Crazy But Were Right All Along,” Emily Pogue, November 9, 2023:3
Evans discovered that the consumption of unpasteurized milk could cause brucellosis, a bacterial infection. She recommended that all milk become pasteurized to eliminate the risk.
The dairy industry laughed at her claim and ignored her research.
Over the span of 10 years, the dairy officials finally heeded her claim and changed their regulations to pasteurize all milk.
The words “The dairy industry laughed at her claim and ignored her research” demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated her pasteurization hypothesis, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
FS4:
Robert Goddard (1882-1945), the American engineer, professor, physicist, and inventor widely acknowledged as the father of rocket science, launched the world’s first liquid-fueled rocket in 1926. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center was named in his honor in 1959. He was inducted into the international Aerospace Hall of Fame and National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1966, and the International Space Hall of Fame in 1976.
FS4 is evidence of a 2-decade-long meta problem occurrence beginning in 1920. The following is from Forbes.com, s.v., “The Correction Heard ‘Round The World: When The New York Times Apologized to Robert Goddard,” Kiona N. Smith, July 20, 2018:4
Goddard faced instant skepticism when he published an article in Popular Science describing how rockets could launch ships into space.
Although the article caught the public imagination, it also drew harsh criticism.
(On) January 13, 1920, the New York Times published an editorial insisting that a rocket couldn’t possibly work in space:
“That professor Goddard … does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react (implies) he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
Goddard … retreated from the public eye, and from most interaction with other scientists, but continued his research.
Goddard (was) vindicated by the 1944 launch of a German V-2 guided ballistic missile.
The words “Goddard faced instant skepticism” and “he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools” demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated Goddard’s contributions, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
FS5:
Claire Cameron Patterson (1922-1995), an American geochemist, published a 1965 paper explaining increasing lead levels in human bodies 600 times higher than they should be. His activism “proved seminal” in the critical problem’s solution: the banning of leaded gasoline in the 1980s.
FS5 is evidence of a 2-decade-long meta problem occurrence beginning in 1965. The following is from Wikipedia, s.v., “Claire Patterson,” November 20, 2025:5
In 1965 Patterson published (a paper) beginning his efforts to draw public attention to the problem of increasing lead levels in the environment including the food chain. He criticized the experimental methods of other scientists and thus encountered strong opposition from those then recognized as experts …
Following his criticism … he was refused contracts by several supposedly-neutral research organizations, including the United States Public Health Service. In 1971 he was excluded from a National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination, even though he was by then the foremost singular expert on the subject.
The words “he encountered strong opposition from those then regarded as experts” and “he was excluded … even though he was … the foremost singular expert on the subject” demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated the leaded gasoline hypothesis, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
FS6:
The partnership between Robin Warren (1937-2024), an Australian pathologist, and Barry Marshall, an Australian physician, began soon after Warren published a 1979 paper suggesting a bacterial cause for peptic ulcers. Their groundbreaking research earned them the “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine” in 2005.
FS6 is evidence of a decade-long meta problem occurrence beginning in 1979. The following is from thelancet.com, s.v., “Nobel Prize winners Robin Warren and Barry Marshall,” Stephen Pincock, October 22, 2005:6
Since 1979, he had been gathering more and more samples. “As far as I was concerned the way they were arranged, they were associated with the gastritis”, Warren said. “But trying to convince other people of that was impossible.”
Warren recalls: “Every time I spoke to a clinician they would say, ‘Robin, if these bacteria are causing it as you say, why hasn’t it been described before?’.” Orthodox medical teaching at the time was that bacteria did not grow in a normal stomach. However, as Warren wrote in the 2002 book Helicobacter Pioneers, “I preferred to believe my eyes, not the medical textbooks or the medical fraternity.”
The words “trying to convince other people of that was impossible” and “why hasn’t it been described before” demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated the bacteria-ulcer hypothesis, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
FS7:
The HIV AIDS crisis was emerging in the early 1980s when Anthony Fauci was appointed the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
In the following transcript from an interview on the June 17, 2024, episode of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show,7 Fauci’s words are evidence of a multi-year meta problem occurrence:
Back in the mid to late 80s, what most gay activists, young gay men, were doing is that they were trying to get our attention that they needed to be part of the process of discussing the rigidity of the clinical trial, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the extraordinary amount of time, understandably, that the FDA took to approve a drug without any basis at all for getting drugs to people who needed a compassionate use for it. They wanted us to say, “sit down with us and we’ll tell you how we can make this work.”
The scientific community, myself included at the time, and the regulatory community, they said something which was understandable but completely unacceptable in retrospect, like, “we know better what’s for you than you know for you.”
So, when they heard that, that’s when they started to be very iconoclastic, demonstrative, theatrical, and disruptive. The scientific community pulled back from that even more.
Probably one of the best things I’ve ever done in my career was I just started listening … and what they were saying was making absolutely perfect sense.
So, I kind of describe it now to people, I use the John Lewis when he said, “that’s trouble, but it’s good trouble.” They were making good trouble for me, and when I started listening to them, we were on the same track.
The words “we know better what’s for you than you know for you” demonstrate that the scientific community reflexively eliminated the gay community’s proposal, and then not every proposal was listed for consideration.
The words “I just started listening” are evidence of when FS7’s meta problem occurrence ended.
Root cause:
The meta problem’s hypothetical solution is based on the statement below:
The meta problem’s “root cause” is in a thought subprocess occurring in less than one third of a second below the level of conscious awareness.
If root cause action solves the meta problem beyond a reasonable doubt, then the hypothesis is conclusively confirmed.
Semmelweis’ handwashing hypothesis was conclusively confirmed when root cause action solved FS1’s critical problem beyond a reasonable doubt. But then it took two decades and Pasteur’s theoretical explanation for the scientific community to follow Step 3a of the essential process.
The gay community’s hypothesis was conclusively confirmed when Fauci’s root cause action solved FS7’s critical problem beyond a reasonable doubt. But it took years for Fauci to follow Step 3a of the essential process.
So, FS1 and FS7 are different, but the above problem statement is the common underlying pattern in literally every meta problem occurrence.
To understand the meta problem’s root cause, start by understanding the Libet experiment.
Benjamin Libet (1916-2007) was an American neuroscientist and a pioneer in the field of human consciousness. A paper he published in 1983 describing his famous experiment revealed an otherwise hidden thought process.8
Fauci’s description of his thoughts during and after the meta problem occurrence make FS7 the ideal option for understanding Libet’s experiment and the above root cause statement.
A response occurs because a stimulus’ pattern matches an unconscious assumption’s pattern. A stimulus detected by the sense organs is matched to an “unconscious assumption” stored in the unconscious mind’s memory. Only a tiny fraction of the sensory stimuli detected by the senses result in a voluntary response.9
Increases in neuronal activity detected by Libet’s experiment reveal that a “voluntary” response is preceded by a half second cognitive process comprised of an initial 300 ms unconscious subprocess and a final 200 ms conscious subprocess.
A stimulus and an assumption are matched — and then unconscious intent is formed — in the initial 300 ms subprocess.
The conscious mind becomes aware of unconscious intent during the final 200 ms subprocess.
Some unconscious assumptions specify contemplation. Otherwise, the matched assumption specifies a physical action. Either way, the 500 ms process ends, the unconscious mind triggers the response, and the response is an expression of unconscious intent.
When the response is action, the conscious mind passively observes. When the response is contemplation, the conscious mind actively participates by “deciding” the best way to resolve a conflict.
The implicit motive in some assumptions is to seize an opportunity. Otherwise, the matched assumption’s motive is to neutralize a threat. Either way, if the matched assumption specifies contemplation, then the conscious mind’s task is to “decide” how to achieve unconscious intent.
A stimulus matched to a specific assumption in one cognitive cycle can be matched to a conflicting assumption in another cycle because the unconscious mind’s enormous inventory of unconscious assumptions is inescapably conflicted.
When a stimulus’ pattern matches two conflicting assumptions, the probability that it will be matched to one or the other depends on the relative strength of the two respective neuronal pathways, and the more a pathway is used, the stronger it gets.
The matching process is otherwise random.
As the half second cognitive process ends:
When “action” is triggered, the response occurs immediately, and
When “contemplation” is triggered, the decision-making process might take a few seconds, or many generations, or anything in between.
FS7’s proposed solution “stimulus” was matched to an assumption stored in Fauci’s unconscious mind, and the resulting interaction formed unconscious intent.
Evaluating a proposal in Step 3b of the essential process involves the use of three valuable resources: time, energy, and attention. An opportunity is seized when a resource is used to create something of lasting value. A threat is neutralized to prevent the destruction or waste of a valuable resource.
During FS7’s meta problem occurrence, the unconscious mind repeatedly assumed that the proposal was a waste of a valuable resource and contemplation evaluated the many conflicting ways to neutralize the threat.
When the occurrence ended, the unconscious mind assumed that the proposal was a potential solution and contemplation evaluated the many conflicting ways to seize the opportunity.
When the 500 ms process ends, contemplation takes at least a few seconds to:
Imagine possibilities,
Evaluate the options,
Use the evaluation to choose the best option, and
Submit the resulting decision to the unconscious mind.
During FS7’s meta problem occurrence, Fauci’s conscious mind took at least a few seconds to choose the “best” option and decided to say, “we know better what’s for you than you know for you.”
When the occurrence ended, Fauci’s conscious mind took at least a few seconds to decide that the best option was to “just start listening.”
For years:
Fauci’s “neutralize threat” unconscious intent formed in the initial 300 ms phase,
He reflexively eliminated the proposal in Step 3a of the essential process, and
Leading AIDS activist Larry Kramer (1935-2020) referred to Fauci as an “incompetent idiot” and a “pill-pushing” tool of the medical establishment.
Then:
His “seize opportunity” unconscious intent formed in the initial 300 ms phase,
He reflexively considered the proposal in Step 3a of the essential process, and
Kramer ended up referring to Fauci as “the only true and great hero” among government officials during the AIDS crisis.
FS7’s meta problem occurrence lasted for years because the probability of a match between the proposal stimulus and the essential process was close to zero.
The probability would have been much higher if Fauci had been deliberately practicing the essential process in every context, and that would have been better. But at least the occurrence ended because the probability was not zero. Either way, Step 3a of the essential process occurs in the 300 ms subprocess in the unconscious mind.
Solution:
E15’s message is that the meta problem’s root cause is actionable.
Hypothetically, I am the meta problem’s Larry Kramer. Who wants to be its Anthony Fauci?
To test hypothetical meta problem solutions:
Post a comment at www.wisdomtheo.com/contact/, and/or
Share E15 with members and supporters of the scientific community.
Issues raised by this newsletter’s subscribers will be addressed in future essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow
https://www.ranker.com/list/historical-figures-crazy-proven-right-all-along/emily-mast
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/07/19/the-correction-heard-round-the-world-when-the-new-york-times-apologized-to-robert-goddard/?sh=282672b64543
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Patterson
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67587-3/fulltext
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/06/22/your-brain-sees-even-when-you-dont/