Astrophysics has never been considered a non-science. It would be better to say that, before it started generating testable theories, astrophysics wasn't taken too seriously- something like the state astrobiology is in today. Cecilia Payne was not considered a non-scientist. The low level of respect she and her ideas encountered for a number of years was largely the result of the fact she was a woman at a time when women weren't expected to be scientists. That's a problem with scientists and society, not with science itself.Sputnick wrote:Astrophysics was once non-science as far as the establishment was concenerned, and Celia Payne was considered a non-scientist. I highly, highly, highly recommend the book 'Through a Universe Darkly' by physicist Marcia Bartusiak. This book puts historical condemnation of new ideas in a beautifully bright light.
It is common in science for new ideas to be rejected. On the whole, this is a good thing, because it forces the defenders of new ideas to make a particularly strong case for change. And that is where the burden should lie, because if every scientist had to devote serious attention to every new idea, nothing much would get done.
Cecilia Payne's ideas were accepted, because she was able to make a solid case that they were right. So in the end, despite the fact that she herself was not respected by much of the establishment, her ideas won out on their merit- because she was able to demonstrate why they were better than other ideas. Note that she did this by working within the system: she utilized formal scientific methods, published peer reviewed papers, and generated testable theories. She played by the rules <g>.
