During the earlier stage of research, I always worry.
What if people disagree? Say that although my method works, how would a good scientist defend his method among audience of different background?
I remember talking to a fellow scientist regarding the earlier state of genetic algorithm development. He outlined that the mathematicians could not accept GA without mathematical proofs. Why? Because when you solve GA problems, you need to have multiple runs and unique random starting points. Post optimization, you observe whether your solutions have converged, then analyze the statistical data to be sure that the final solutions are consistent. GA is capable to solve maximization or minimization problem using a stochastic method, where until today, the work on GA’s mathematical proof are still progressing.
Well, if you look at Wolfram’s work (that include the book ‘A New Kind of Science’ and Wolfram Alpha), he tries to convince scientists to accept that the future is not math. He asserts that computation is the buzz. Simply said, if you can compute, you can predict and reason out. I observe that, Wolfram wants to study correlation and unique relationships using any possible tools that work without worrying too much on the mathematical proof, using Wolfram Alpha.
This. This kind of disagreement between science communities really makes sense to me, therefore I’m peacefully do my research without worries of critics and disagreement of others.