What makes new theories so convincing that they can establish themselves within the scientific community? Through what persuasive forces does a heterodox theory become orthodox? And why does a heterodox theory remain credible to its adherents even as a heterodox theory? The question of the causes of theory change is as widely debated as it is unresolved. The only thing that seems undisputed is that logical and empirical justifications do not play the sole role in the course of scientific change, just as this process does not seem to be fully accounted for by an analysis of power dynamics and group psychology. The work of persuasion and legitimization is carried out in a wide variety of ways: The pressure to justify oneself within the scientific community invariably gives rise to strategies that make use of manipulative influence, anecdotes, exemplifications, thought experiments, crisis narratives, radical scientific theories, and epistemologies, among other things. We wish to take a nuanced look at the broad spectrum of these persuasive forces. However, the conference is not intended to focus solely on the transformation of theories—that is, the transition from heterodoxy to orthodoxy—but also to examine persuasive forces that can lend plausibility to the persistence of theories. Why do heterodoxies that have failed to establish themselves and remain permanently outside the scientific consensus nevertheless exert such a persistent power of persuasion on their adherents?

The conference is part of the research program of the interdisciplinary project "Heterodoxies" at the WIN-Kolleg of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities.