The Primacy of Problem Formulation in Scientific Inquiry: Why Asking the Right Question Matters More Than Experimental Validation

The Primacy of the Question: Why Problem Formulation, Not Experimentation, is the Core of Scientific Discovery

Preprint

Liu, Yue, The Primacy of Problem Formulation in Scientific Inquiry: Why Asking the Right Question Matters more than Experimental Validation (November 06, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5709303 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5709303

The Primacy of Problem Formulation in Scientific Inquiry: Why Asking the Right Question Matters More Than Experimental Validation

Yue Liu

College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034, yueliusd@163.com

ORCID: Yue Liu: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730

Abstract

Contemporary scientific practice has become dominated by an epistemological framework that privileges experimental validation as the fundamental arbiter of scientific truth, often expressed through the maxim “experiment is the sole criterion for testing theory.” This paper challenges this empiricist orthodoxy and argues that the capacity to formulate correct scientific problems represents the most critical determinant of genuine scientific progress. We demonstrate through historical analysis (Newton’s gravitational problem, Galileo’s inquiry into falling bodies, Schrödinger’s wave-particle investigation) that transformative scientific breakthroughs emerge not from experimental execution but from the correct formulation of foundational problems. Experimental validation, while important, plays a secondary role—validating insights already generated through theoretical reasoning. Furthermore, we argue that contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms in scientific publishing have systematically suppressed theoretically novel problem formulations by demanding evidence prior to exploration, thereby reversing the actual logic of scientific discovery. We contend that correct problem formulation—often expressed through educated speculation (speculation)—should precede and guide empirical investigation rather than follow from accumulated data. The paper examines how this inversion has produced an explosion of experimentally-saturated but theoretically shallow publications, while suppressing the genuine theoretical innovations necessary for scientific progress. We conclude that restoring the primacy of problem formulation requires institutional recognition that theoretical novelty should be evaluated on the basis of conceptual depth rather than evidentiary completeness at the moment of initial formulation.

Keywords

problem formulation, theoretical primacy, scientific discovery, experimental validation, speculation, paradigm-shifting inquiry, theoretical reasoning, academic gatekeeping, evidence accumulation, scientific methodology, disruptive innovation, theoretical depth

1. Introduction

1.1 The Contemporary Epistemological Orthodoxy

Modern scientific practice operates according to a well-established methodological sequence: formulate a question, construct hypotheses, conduct experiments to test those hypotheses, and then refine theoretical understanding based on empirical results. This procedural framework has become so deeply embedded in scientific culture that it appears self-evident, almost unquestionable. Within this framework, experimental validation occupies a position of supreme importance—it is understood as the mechanism through which theories are tested, claims are verified, and knowledge claims achieve legitimacy.

This epistemological stance has generated powerful philosophical doctrines, most notably the principle that “experiment is the sole criterion for testing theory.” From this principle has emerged a profound institutional consequence: within contemporary scientific publishing, only work reporting novel experimental data is considered genuine scientific research. Theoretical work, by contrast, is frequently dismissed as “mere opinion” or “speculation without empirical support.” This distinction has hardened into editorial policy and peer review practice, creating a systematic bias against theoretical contributions.

The consequences are significant and widely acknowledged within scientific communities. The contemporary literature is saturated with experimentally-detailed publications that report data with impressive precision while providing theoretical interpretations that are shallow, inaccurate, or fundamentally incompatible with established physical principles. These publications proliferate because they satisfy the empiricist criterion: they present novel experimental data. Meanwhile, theoretical work that challenges foundational assumptions or proposes conceptually novel frameworks faces systematic rejection on grounds of “insufficient evidence,” “inadequate empirical support,” or “lack of experimental validation”—criticisms that confuse the order of scientific discovery with the order of justification.

This paper challenges this contemporary orthodoxy and proposes an alternative epistemology: the capacity to formulate correct scientific problems represents the most fundamental determinant of scientific progress, while experimental validation plays a necessary but secondary role in confirming insights already generated through theoretical reasoning.

1.2 Historical Precedent and Conceptual Inversion

Examination of history’s most significant scientific breakthroughs reveals a pattern that contradicts contemporary empiricist doctrine. Newton did not begin with experimental data about planetary motion and then construct the theory of universal gravitation through data analysis. Rather, Newton formulated a correct theoretical problem: “Why does the moon change its direction of motion and orbit the Earth?” This correct problem—grounded in the principle that only force can alter an object’s direction of motion—led Newton toward the hypothesis of universal gravitation and the mathematical frameworks necessary to develop it. The experimental evidence (planetary observations, terrestrial measurements) followed as confirmation of insights already generated through theoretical reasoning.

Similarly, Galileo did not accumulate data about falling bodies over decades and then hypothesize that objects of different weights fall at equivalent rates in the absence of air resistance. Rather, Galileo formulated a correct problem through bold speculation: “What if iron balls and feathers fall simultaneously?” This speculation—this setting forth of a question—opened the conceptual space in which differential air resistance and gravitational acceleration could be distinguished. The experimental evidence (objects falling through vacuum or air) became possible only after the problem was correctly formulated.

Schrödinger’s development of quantum mechanics followed a similar pattern. Schrödinger first conceived of a bold theoretical speculation: incorporating wave-particle duality into the classical wave equation. This initial conjecture—this correct formulation of a novel problem—preceded the subsequent mathematical development of the Schrödinger equation and the experimental evidence that would confirm its predictions. Without this initial theoretical speculation, without this correct problem formulation, the experimental evidence could never have been generated or properly interpreted.

In each case, correct problem formulation precedes experimental confirmation. The experimental evidence validates insights already generated through theoretical reasoning. Yet contemporary scientific institutions have inverted this logical sequence, demanding experimental evidence before permitting theoretical speculation to circulate within scientific discourse.

1.3 Paper Organization and Argumentative Structure

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 examines the contemporary empiricist orthodoxy and traces its historical origins. Section 3 identifies the specific gatekeeping mechanisms through which this orthodoxy suppresses theoretical speculation. Section 4 analyzes the logical structure of scientific discovery, demonstrating why correct problem formulation must precede experimental validation rather than follow it. Section 5 provides detailed historical case studies (Newton, Galileo, Schrödinger) demonstrating the epistemological priority of problem formulation. Section 6 examines consequences of the inversion: proliferation of shallow experimental work and suppression of theoretically novel contributions. Section 7 extends the analysis to contemporary materials science, particularly microwave absorption theory, demonstrating how correct problem formulation has generated transformative theoretical frameworks while facing systematic institutional rejection. Section 8 proposes institutional reforms necessary to restore problem formulation to its appropriate epistemological position. Section 9 concludes with implications for future scientific progress.

2. The Contemporary Empiricist Orthodoxy: Origins and Institutional Consequences

2.1 Historical Development of Empiricist Epistemology

The contemporary insistence on experimental validation as the supreme criterion of scientific truth emerged gradually through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While early modern science (Newton, Galileo) clearly understood that theoretical reasoning played a central role in generating novel insights, the subsequent professionalization of science created institutional structures that increasingly emphasized data collection and experimental technique.

This emphasis was not unreasonable within its historical context. The professionalization of science required standardized methods, reproducible procedures, and publicly verifiable results. Experimental procedures, being more readily standardized and publicly verifiable than theoretical speculation, became the focus of institutional attention. Over time, this methodological emphasis gradually hardened into epistemological doctrine: the belief that experiment possesses not merely pragmatic value but fundamental epistemic priority.

The twentieth century witnessed the full crystallization of this doctrine. Logical positivism, the dominant epistemological framework in mid-century philosophy of science, explicitly denied that theoretical reasoning could generate genuine knowledge. Only empirically verifiable propositions could claim scientific status; theoretical speculation without empirical grounding was meaningless. While logical positivism has been thoroughly discredited as a philosophical position, its epistemological legacy persists powerfully within scientific institutions. The gatekeeping mechanisms of contemporary science continue to enforce positions substantially identical to positivist doctrine, even though the philosophical frameworks justifying such positions have been abandoned by contemporary philosophers of science.

2.2 Contemporary Institutional Manifestations

This empiricist orthodoxy has become embedded in contemporary scientific institutions through multiple reinforcing mechanisms:

Editorial policies: Major journals explicitly state that theoretical contributions without novel experimental data are not suitable for publication. Theoretical papers are frequently directed toward philosophy-of-science or methods journals, rather than discipline-specific venues. The clear message: genuine science produces experimental data; theoretical work is peripheral to the scientific enterprise.

Peer review practices: Reviewers drawn from empiricist communities evaluate theoretical submissions by asking: “Where is the experimental evidence?” “What novel data does this paper report?” “How does this work advance empirical knowledge?” These questions, while seemingly reasonable, function to suppress theoretical innovation by demanding evidence before theoretical development has been completed.

Career incentives: Scholars seeking professional advancement within contemporary institutions quickly learn that publications reporting novel experimental data advance careers more effectively than theoretical contributions. The metrics that determine hiring, promotion, and funding—publication counts, citation rates, grant amounts—systematically favor experimental work. Theoretical researchers either compromise their research programs by adding experimental components (often superficial or tangential to their theoretical interests) or accept career disadvantage.

Funding allocation: Grant-awarding bodies, composed primarily of empirically-oriented researchers, tend to fund research programs centered on experimental questions. Proposals advancing novel theoretical frameworks without accompanying experimental protocols face systematic disadvantage in funding competitions. This creates a feedback loop: theoretically-oriented researchers cannot secure funding; funding availability channels emerging researchers toward empirical work; the next generation of grant reviewers are trained in empirical traditions; theoretical funding becomes even rarer.

Journal hierarchies and prestige: High-impact journals, which determine research prestige and career visibility, maintain editorial structures populated by empirically-oriented scholars. These journals preferentially publish experimental work. Theoretical contributions appear in lower-impact venues. Scholars seeking visibility and career advancement recognize this hierarchy and adjust research strategies accordingly.

2.3 Theoretical Consequences of Institutional Empiricism

The institutional elevation of experimentation to supreme epistemic status has generated profound consequences for the character of contemporary scientific literature. These consequences are overwhelmingly negative:

Proliferation of shallow experimental work: Contemporary scientific journals are saturated with papers reporting experimental data analyzed through mechanical statistical procedures, interpreted through theoretical frameworks that are shallow, inaccurate, or fundamentally incoherent. These papers satisfy the empiricist criterion—they present novel data—but they fail to contribute genuine understanding. They accumulate experimental facts without generating theoretical insight.

Theoretical incoherence in experimental interpretation: Many contemporary experimental papers interpret their findings through theoretical frameworks that contradict established physical principles or fundamental laws of nature. These interpretations achieve publication not because they are theoretically sound but because they accompany experimental data. The result: widespread dissemination of incorrect theoretical claims, presented with the authority of experimental validation.

Suppression of theoretical innovation: Genuinely novel theoretical frameworks, proposed at early stages of development when empirical confirmation is incomplete, face systematic rejection. The gatekeeping response is predictable: “This is interesting speculation, but where is the evidence?” This response conflates the logical sequence of discovery with the logical sequence of justification. A theoretical innovation can be logically sound and potentially transformative while remaining empirically incomplete at the moment of initial formulation.

Accumulation of garbage literature: The net consequence is an expanding literature of experimentally-saturated but theoretically shallow publications—what might be termed “garbage literature” in the sense that it consumes scientific resources (researcher time, journal space, peer review effort) while generating minimal genuine insight. This literature is not dishonest or fraudulent; it simply represents shallow interpretations of experimental data, conducted without adequate theoretical depth.

3. Gatekeeping Mechanisms: How Contemporary Institutions Suppress Theoretical Speculation

3.1 The Evidence Demand as Suppression Mechanism

Contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms operate through a deceptively simple strategy: demanding evidence prior to theoretical development. When a researcher proposes a novel theoretical framework that challenges existing paradigms, the standard gatekeeping response is: “This is interesting, but where is your evidence?” “This lacks sufficient empirical support.” “This requires additional data before it can be considered credible.”

These critiques appear reasonable on their surface. Of course, theoretical claims should be supported by evidence; of course, empirical validation matters. But the gatekeeping response functions to suppress theoretical innovation by demanding that theoretical development be completed before the theoretical framework has generated empirical predictions that can be tested.

Consider the logical problem: A theoretical innovator proposes a novel framework for understanding phenomenon X. This framework is conceptually rich, logically coherent, and challenges existing interpretations. But the framework is new; its empirical implications have not been fully developed; evidence specifically designed to test the framework has not been collected. The gatekeeping response is immediate: “Insufficient evidence. Rejected.”

But this response confuses evidence for a theoretical framework with evidence that the framework generates. Before a theoretical framework has been fully developed, one cannot expect complete evidence supporting all its implications. Yet contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms demand exactly this: evidence prior to theoretical completion.

The result is a vicious cycle: Theoretical innovators cannot publish novel frameworks because evidence is incomplete; without publication, the frameworks cannot circulate within scientific communities; without circulation, collaborative research teams cannot form to generate the evidence necessary to test the frameworks; without evidence generation, the frameworks remain unpublished. The gatekeeping mechanism operates to suppress innovation while appearing to enforce scientific standards.

3.2 The Special Problem of Paradigm-Challenging Theoretical Work

The suppression mechanism operates with particular intensity against theoretical work that challenges foundational paradigms. When a researcher proposes a framework that contradicts existing consensus, reviewers drawn from consensus communities apply heightened critical standards and demand evidence that, by the nature of paradigm-challenging work, cannot yet exist.

For example, a researcher challenging the impedance-matching interpretation of microwave absorption mechanisms would propose an alternative theoretical framework grounded in wave superposition. This framework, if theoretically sound, would eventually generate different empirical predictions than the impedance-matching framework. But the empirical predictions require the theoretical framework to be fully developed, which requires the framework to be published, which requires evidence that the framework is correct. The circularity is apparent.

Yet this is precisely the position in which contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms place theoretical innovators. The demand for evidence prior to theoretical development ensures that paradigm-challenging work faces systematically higher barriers than conformist work that fits existing frameworks.

3.3 The Humanities Analog: Statistical Evidence as Suppression Mechanism

An analogous suppression mechanism operates in humanities and social science research, though with a different specific mechanism. In these fields, when a researcher proposes a novel theoretical argument about institutional mechanisms, research bias, or systematic problems within academic structures, the gatekeeping response frequently takes the form: “This lacks sufficient statistical support.” “You need quantitative evidence for these claims.” “Your conclusions exceed the evidence you have presented.”

This response faces a logical absurdity: the phenomenon the researcher is documenting (suppression of theoretical arguments through gatekeeping bias) by definition generates no published literature that could provide statistical evidence. The evidence literally cannot exist because the gatekeeping mechanism prevents its publication. By demanding statistical evidence for claims about gatekeeping suppression, reviewers demand evidence that the gatekeeping system itself prevents from appearing in the literature.

The result is systematic suppression of research documenting academic bias itself. A researcher documents specific instances of gatekeeping bias, peer review rejection of theoretically novel work, and editorial suppression of paradigm-challenging contributions. The gatekeeping response is predictable: “Your claims about gatekeeping bias need statistical support. You need published literature demonstrating this pattern. But such literature cannot be published because of the very gatekeeping bias you are documenting.”

This is not merely a failure of gatekeeping mechanisms; it is a structural impossibility. Systems that suppress evidence of their own suppressive mechanisms will inevitably prevent the publication of statistical documentation of that suppression.

4. The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Why Problem Formulation Precedes Experimental Validation

4.1 The Epistemological Priority of Problem Formulation

Scientific discovery operates through a logical sequence that begins with problem formulation and only subsequently proceeds to experimental validation. This sequence is not arbitrary; it follows necessarily from the structure of scientific inquiry itself.

A scientific problem, properly formulated, already contains significant theoretical insight. The problem specifies: what aspect of natural phenomena is puzzling or requires explanation; what conceptual distinction is being drawn; what theoretical assumptions are being questioned; what conceptual possibilities are being opened for investigation. In this sense, the correct formulation of a scientific problem already constitutes a form of theoretical understanding.

Consider Newton’s problem: “Why does the moon change its direction of motion and orbit the Earth?” This problem contains within it several theoretical insights: (1) The moon does indeed change direction; (2) This directional change requires explanation; (3) The moon’s orbital motion is not natural or spontaneous but requires causal explanation; (4) The explanation involves force, since only force alters direction. The problem, correctly formulated, already points toward gravitational force as the explanatory mechanism.

Once a scientific problem is correctly formulated, the path toward its solution becomes significantly constrained. Not all experimental investigations are equally relevant to a correctly-formulated problem. Only those experiments that can address the specific conceptual issues embedded in the problem formulation contribute to solving it. In this sense, problem formulation functions as a guide directing subsequent empirical investigation.

4.2 Speculation as Problem Formulation

Scientific “speculation” (in the positive sense of informed conjecture) functions as a form of problem formulation. When Galileo speculated that “iron balls and feathers fall simultaneously,” he was formulating a problem: “Are falling times truly different, or does this appearance result from air resistance?” This speculation guided subsequent experimental investigation toward the correct variables (air resistance, vacuum conditions) and the correct conceptual distinction (gravitational acceleration versus air resistance).

Similarly, when Schrödinger conceived of incorporating wave-particle duality into the classical wave equation, he was formulating a theoretical problem: “Can the wave properties of particles be mathematically formalized through a wave equation?” This theoretical speculation preceded the mathematical development and the experimental confirmation. It opened the conceptual space in which quantum mechanics became possible.

In each case, speculation functions as a form of problem articulation. It identifies a novel conceptual possibility and proposes investigating it. This proposal is itself a form of theoretical understanding—it identifies what should be investigated and why.

4.3 Evidence as Confirmation, Not Generation

Once a scientific problem is correctly formulated, experimental evidence plays the role of confirmation rather than generation. The evidence confirms that the problem was indeed correctly formulated; that the theoretical reasoning was sound; that the insights generated through speculation were accurate. But the evidence does not generate the original insight; the original insight was generated through correct problem formulation.

This distinction is crucial for understanding the epistemological sequence of scientific discovery. Many contemporary scientists conflate experimental evidence with the source of scientific insight, assuming that empirical investigation generates the significant scientific ideas. Historical analysis reveals the opposite pattern: correct problem formulation generates significant insights; experimental evidence confirms them.

5. Historical Case Studies: Problem Formulation and Scientific Revolution

5.1 Newton: Gravity and the Problem of Planetary Motion

Isaac Newton understood a fundamental principle: only force can change an object’s direction of motion. This principle, drawn from classical mechanics, constituted his theoretical foundation. Observing that the Moon orbits Earth—that it continuously changes direction in its motion—Newton formulated a profound problem: “What force causes the Moon to change direction?” This problem was not generated from experimental data; it was formulated through theoretical reasoning applied to observed phenomena.

The formulation of this problem—this correct identification of what required explanation—already pointed strongly toward gravitational force. Newton then developed the mathematical framework (inverse square law, universal gravitation) that would explain planetary motions. Only after this theoretical development did experimental evidence (astronomical observations, terrestrial measurements) become relevant as confirmation.

The sequence is clear: theoretical principle (force changes motion) → correct problem formulation (what force causes lunar orbit?) → theoretical development (inverse square law, gravitational mechanics) → experimental confirmation (celestial observations).

The evidence did not generate the original problem or the theoretical insight. The evidence confirmed that the theoretical reasoning was sound and that the problem had been correctly formulated.

5.2 Galileo: The Problem of Falling Bodies

Galileo did not accumulate decades of experimental data on falling objects and then theorize that they fall at equivalent rates in the absence of air resistance. Rather, Galileo formulated a bold theoretical speculation: “What if objects of different weights fall simultaneously?” This speculation constituted a problem formulation: “Are differences in falling times intrinsic to gravity or do they result from air resistance?”

By formulating this problem—by proposing this theoretical speculation—Galileo opened the conceptual space in which gravitational acceleration and air resistance could be distinguished. The experimental evidence (objects falling through vacuum) then confirmed his insight. Without the prior problem formulation, without the theoretical speculation, the experimental evidence would never have been generated or properly interpreted.

Again, the sequence is: theoretical speculation (objects fall simultaneously?) → problem formulation (gravity vs. air resistance) → experimental investigation (vacuum experiments) → evidence confirmation.

5.3 Schrödinger: Wave-Particle Duality and Quantum Mechanics

Schrödinger’s development of quantum mechanics began with a theoretical speculation: what if the wave-particle duality of matter could be incorporated into the mathematical structure of classical wave equations? This initial speculation—this conception of a novel theoretical problem—preceded the mathematical development of the Schrödinger equation.

The historical record is clear on this point. Schrödinger formulated his wave equation not from experimental data but from theoretical reasoning about how to mathematically represent wave-particle duality. Only subsequent to this theoretical development did the equation generate predictions (quantized energy levels, probability distributions) that could be empirically tested.

Without Schrödinger’s initial theoretical speculation—without this correct problem formulation in the realm of quantum mechanics—the equation would never have been developed. The experimental evidence that subsequently confirmed the equation’s predictions came only after the theory had been developed and its implications elaborated.

In each of these cases—Newton, Galileo, Schrödinger—the pattern is identical: correct problem formulation generates theoretical insight; theoretical development follows; experimental evidence provides confirmation. The evidence does not generate the original insight; the original insight is generated through correct problem formulation and theoretical reasoning.

6. Contemporary Consequences: The Proliferation of Shallow Experimental Work and Suppression of Theoretical Innovation

6.1 The Explosion of Experimentally-Saturated, Theoretically-Shallow Literature

Contemporary scientific publishing has produced an unprecedented explosion of experimental publications reporting data with impressive technical sophistication while providing theoretical interpretations that are shallow, incoherent, or fundamentally incorrect. These publications proliferate because they satisfy the contemporary gatekeeping criterion: they report novel experimental data.

The characteristics of this shallow literature are well-known within scientific communities, though rarely acknowledged in formal discourse:

Mechanical data analysis: Modern experimental papers frequently employ statistical procedures mechanically, without genuine understanding of what the statistics mean or whether they are appropriate to the research question. The result: technically precise data presented with inappropriate or meaningless statistical summaries.

Incoherent theoretical interpretation: The experimental data are then interpreted through theoretical frameworks that are inaccurate, incomplete, or fundamentally incompatible with established physical principles. Yet these incoherent interpretations are published alongside the data because the empiricist gatekeeping mechanism demands only that novel data be reported, not that it be interpreted coherently.

Perpetuation of incorrect paradigms: These shallow interpretations become incorporated into the literature and influence subsequent research. Incorrect theoretical frameworks, presented with the apparent authority of experimental validation, are inherited by the next generation of researchers. Paradigm-sustaining misinterpretations become entrenched through repetition.

Consumption of scientific resources: Each such publication consumes research effort, peer review time, journal space, and researcher attention. The resources invested in generating, reviewing, and publicizing this work might have been directed toward genuine theoretical innovation. Instead, they are diverted to accumulating shallow experimental work.

6.2 Contemporary Suppression of Theoretical Innovation

Meanwhile, researchers attempting to advance genuinely novel theoretical frameworks face systematic suppression through gatekeeping mechanisms. When a theoretical innovator proposes a framework that challenges existing paradigms or opens new conceptual possibilities, the standard gatekeeping response is: “This is theoretically interesting, but where is the empirical evidence? This work lacks sufficient data to support its claims.”

This response confuses the logical sequence of discovery with the logical sequence of justification. The theoretical innovator is not claiming that complete empirical evidence exists; the researcher is claiming that the theoretical framework is conceptually novel and pointing toward important research directions. The evidence, if the framework is sound, will follow as the framework is developed and its implications explored.

Yet contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms demand that this evidence exist before the theoretical framework is permitted to circulate within scientific discourse. The result: theoretically innovative work remains unpublished; researchers cannot build collaborative networks around novel theoretical insights; the theoretical frameworks remain underdeveloped; evidence that might support them is never generated; the innovations are effectively suppressed.

6.3 The Inversion of Scientific Method

The contemporary empiricist emphasis has produced an inversion of the actual logic of scientific discovery. Historical analysis demonstrates that scientific progress follows this sequence: correct problem formulation → theoretical development → experimental confirmation. Yet contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms demand: experimental data → theoretical interpretation.

This inversion has profound consequences. It suppresses the activity (correct problem formulation) that historically has been most productive of scientific progress. It elevates to supreme importance the activity (mechanical data accumulation) that historically has been least productive of genuine insight. The result is an expansion of empirically-detailed but theoretically shallow literature while theoretically innovative contributions remain suppressed.

7. Case Study: Microwave Absorption Theory and the Suppression of Disruptive Innovation

7.1 The Problem Correctly Formulated

Contemporary microwave absorption science operates within a dominant theoretical framework based on impedance matching principles. This framework interprets microwave absorption through the lens of matching electromagnetic impedance between free space and absorbing materials. Within this framework, specific conceptual tools have become standard: quarter-wavelength thickness optimization, impedance matching coefficients, permittivity-permeability relationships.

Yet the fundamental problem underlying microwave absorption had never been correctly formulated. The dominant framework confused material properties with membrane properties; conflated electromagnetic impedance with wave interference; failed to distinguish between wave superposition effects and material absorption mechanisms.

By correctly formulating the foundational problem—”What is the role of wave superposition in electromagnetic wave absorption?”—a theoretically novel framework becomes possible. This reframed problem points toward wave-mechanics principles rather than impedance-matching logic. It opens the conceptual space in which genuine microwave absorption theory can be developed.

7.2 The Wave-Mechanics Framework

Once this correct problem formulation was achieved, the subsequent theoretical development followed logically. A comprehensive wave-mechanics framework for microwave absorption emerges, grounded in principles of wave superposition, wave interference, and field equations. This framework provides genuinely novel insights into absorption mechanisms, predicts phenomena that impedance-matching theory cannot explain, and generates different design principles for absorption materials and devices.

This theoretical framework represents a genuinely disruptive innovation—it challenges the foundations of existing paradigms in microwave absorption science. It is not merely an incremental modification of existing theory; it constitutes a paradigm shift grounded in correct problem formulation.

7.3 The Institutional Suppression of Wave-Mechanics Theory

Yet this genuinely innovative theoretical framework has faced systematic institutional suppression precisely because it emerged through correct problem formulation rather than experimental data accumulation. The gatekeeping response from conventional journals has been predictable: “This is theoretically interesting, but it lacks sufficient experimental evidence.” “Where is the novel experimental data supporting these claims?” “This work needs empirical validation before it can be published in a top-tier journal.”

These responses fundamentally misunderstand the logical sequence of scientific discovery. The wave-mechanics framework represents a correct theoretical problem formulation and its subsequent theoretical development. The empirical predictions and experimental validation will follow as the framework is further developed and its implications explored. To demand experimental evidence prior to completing theoretical development is to demand the impossible and to suppress genuine innovation through institutional gatekeeping.

The suppression is particularly notable given the theoretical depth of wave-dynamic theory. This framework is not superficial speculation or undeveloped conjecture. It represents sophisticated theoretical reasoning grounded in fundamental wave mechanics, field theory, and physical principles. It constitutes the kind of foundational theoretical contribution that, historically, has characterized scientific revolutions. Yet it faces rejection from top-tier journals precisely because it emerged through theoretical reasoning rather than experimental data reporting.

7.4 The Bankruptcy of Impedance-Matching Paradigm

The rejection of wave-mechanics theory becomes all the more troubling when considering the inadequacy of the impedance-matching paradigm it challenges. Contemporary microwave absorption literature is saturated with papers reporting experimental data interpreted through impedance-matching frameworks. Yet these interpretations are frequently incoherent, mechanically applied without genuine understanding, or fundamentally incorrect in their physical reasoning.

The impedance-matching paradigm provides shallow, incorrect theoretical interpretations of absorption mechanisms. Yet this shallow framework continues to dominate the field because it generates experimental publications (data reporting with superficial theoretical interpretation) that satisfy contemporary gatekeeping criteria. Meanwhile, the theoretically superior wave-mechanics framework remains suppressed because it emerged through correct problem formulation rather than experimental data accumulation.

This represents an inversion of genuine scientific progress. The field has optimized for theoretical shallowness while suppressing theoretical depth. It has accumulated experimental data interpreted through inadequate frameworks while suppressing the theoretical innovation necessary for genuine understanding.

8. Institutional Reform: Restoring Epistemological Priority to Problem Formulation

8.1 Recognizing the Epistemological Priority of Theory

Restoring genuine scientific progress requires institutional recognition that theoretical work—particularly theoretically novel problem formulation—occupies an epistemological position prior to and more fundamental than experimental data accumulation.

This recognition would require significant institutional changes:

Publishing reforms: Scientific journals should establish publishing venues specifically designed for theoretically innovative contributions, evaluated by theoretical experts rather than by empirically-oriented reviewers. These venues would evaluate theoretical work on criteria of conceptual novelty, logical coherence, and theoretical depth rather than on the basis of accompanying experimental data.

Peer review modifications: Peer review processes should distinguish between evaluating theoretical innovation (on criteria of conceptual validity and novelty) and evaluating empirical confirmation (on criteria of experimental rigor and data quality). A theoretically novel contribution should not be rejected for incomplete empirical evidence if the theoretical framework itself is sound and conceptually significant.

Career incentive changes: Academic hiring, promotion, and funding decisions should recognize theoretical innovation as equally significant to experimental contribution. Scholars who advance genuinely novel theoretical frameworks should receive career recognition comparable to those conducting experimental research.

Gatekeeping mechanism transformation: The gatekeeping mechanisms that currently suppress theoretical innovation through evidence demands should be fundamentally restructured. Novel theoretical frameworks, if logically coherent and conceptually significant, should be permitted to circulate within scientific discourse even if empirical confirmation is incomplete. The evidence can be accumulated subsequently as the framework is developed and its implications explored.

8.2 Creating Institutional Space for Speculation

Genuine scientific progress requires creating institutional space where informed speculation—educated conjecture about novel theoretical possibilities—can be articulated, developed, and published before complete empirical confirmation exists.

This would represent a significant departure from contemporary practice but would align scientific institutions with the actual logic of historical scientific discovery. Historical analysis demonstrates that the most significant scientific breakthroughs emerged from researchers permitted to speculate about novel theoretical possibilities, develop those speculations through reasoning, and subsequently pursue empirical confirmation. Contemporary gatekeeping mechanisms suppress this process by demanding evidence prior to theoretical development.

Creating institutional space for speculation would require:

Dedicated publication venues: Establishing journals specifically designed to publish theoretically innovative speculation, evaluated by theoretical experts on criteria of conceptual depth and novelty rather than empirical completeness.

Reputational protection: Ensuring that researchers who publish theoretically novel (and therefore initially empirically incomplete) work are not professionally penalized for doing so. Contemporary institutional structures create powerful disincentives against such work; these disincentives must be explicitly addressed.

Collaborative facilitation: Creating mechanisms through which researchers proposing novel theoretical frameworks can connect with colleagues interested in developing empirical implications and generating supporting evidence. The contemporary isolation of theoretical innovators prevents collaborative development of theories.

9. Conclusion

The relationship between problem formulation and experimental validation represents a fundamental issue for contemporary scientific epistemology and institutional structure. Historical analysis demonstrates unambiguously that genuine scientific progress emerges through correct problem formulation, theoretical development, and subsequent experimental confirmation. Yet contemporary scientific institutions have inverted this sequence, elevating experimental data accumulation to supreme importance while suppressing theoretical innovation through gatekeeping mechanisms that demand evidence prior to theoretical development.

The consequences are profound. Contemporary scientific literature is saturated with experimentally-detailed but theoretically shallow publications interpreting data through inadequate or incorrect frameworks. Meanwhile, theoretically innovative frameworks that represent genuine scientific breakthroughs face systematic institutional suppression.

This inversion represents a perversion of genuine scientific method. It is not merely a strategic choice or a matter of institutional emphasis. It constitutes a fundamental distortion of the logic of scientific discovery.

Restoring genuine scientific progress requires institutional recognition that:

• Theoretical innovation is epistemologically prior to experimental confirmation: Correct problem formulation generates scientific insight; experimental evidence provides confirmation. Reversing this sequence suppresses innovation.

• Speculation serves essential functions: Informed conjecture about novel theoretical possibilities represents not a deficiency in scientific rigor but an essential component of scientific discovery. Scientific institutions should create space for speculation rather than suppressing it.

• Evidence accumulation follows theoretical development: Evidence supporting a novel theoretical framework can be accumulated after the framework has been formulated and circulated within scientific discourse. Demanding evidence prior to theoretical development is logically impossible and institutionally suppressive.

• Theoretical depth matters more than empirical completeness at initial formulation: A theoretically novel framework should be evaluated on criteria of conceptual significance and logical coherence rather than on the basis of completeness of empirical support at the moment of initial formulation.

The case of microwave absorption theory exemplifies these issues in concrete form. The wave-mechanics framework represents genuine theoretical innovation grounded in correct problem formulation and sophisticated theoretical reasoning. Yet it faces systematic rejection from top-tier journals precisely because it emerged through theoretical reasoning rather than experimental data reporting. This represents institutional failure—the suppression of genuine scientific innovation through gatekeeping mechanisms that have inverted the actual logic of scientific discovery.

Restoring genuine scientific progress requires fundamental institutional reforms that recognize problem formulation as epistemologically prior to experimental validation, that create space for theoretical speculation and development, and that evaluate theoretical innovation on criteria of conceptual depth rather than empirical completeness. Only through such reforms can scientific institutions restore the conditions under which genuine paradigm-shifting innovation becomes possible.

References

1. Liu, Yue, Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research (August 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5379953 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5379953

2. Liu, Yue, The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research (August 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5376778

3. Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1

4. Liu, Yue, The Primacy of Theoretical Foundations: Why Textbooks and Monographs Matter more than Journal Literature in Scientific Progress (September 09, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5465615 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5465615

5. Liu, Yue, The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5463155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5463155

6. Liu, Yue, The Right to Academic Freedom: Why Scholarly Articles Should Not Require Citations and the Critique of the Academic Gaming System (September 06, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5452134 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5452134

7. Liu, Yue, From Academic Research to Academic Games: How Modern Science Lost its Way (October 31, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5684424 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5684424