In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions

Typically, experts are more likely than beginners to make accomplishments in their fields. However, whether this holds true for every fields can be controversial. In regard to this issue, the given prompt contends that the beginner is more likely than the expert to make significant contributions in any field of inquiry. I mostly disagree with this position for two reasons that will be listed below. However, I do concede that beginners, in some cases, may contribute more than experts due to their novel insights.
First of all, experts tend to contribute more to their fields than beginners because they have considerably more experience and knowledge in these areas than neophytes. For instance, in the field of biology and chemistry, one not only needs abundant knowledge about various organisms and biochemical reactions, but he or she also needs to internalize the process of a number of experiments in order to make meaningful accomplishments in that field. However, it is extremely difficult for beginners to attain a significantly broad scope of knowledge in the field and learn all the procedures that need to be followed in experiments. This is true even if a beginner has extremely high intelligence and intuition in the field since conducting experiments proficiently with no flaws requires a lot of practice and trial and errors in spite of talents. These examples present that due to the lack of experience and expertise in a field of inquiry, beginners are less likely to contribute to the field than experts who have immense experience in the field.
Secondly, experts are more likely to make contributions to their fields because experts are inclined to devote much more of their time and effort to their areas than beginners. For instance, many physicists including Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrodinger devoted most of their time ruminating about the relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Due to their long-lasting passion and love for their interests, they were able to devote a significant amount of endeavor and time to come up with those theories despite a number of difficulties coming up with ideas. On the other hand, since beginners tend to experiment with their interests on various fields, they are less likely to apply themselves to one specific field. Hence, if a considerable amount of effort and time is needed or difficulties are faced when they delve into the filed, they are likely to turn their directions to other fields that might interest them more. These examples present that experts are likely to make more accomplishments in their fields than novices because of their firm attachment and enthusiasm that has been formed over decades.
Admittedly, in some cases, beginners can make more contributions than experts. For instance, Winston Hubble, a former attorney but who later turned his career to astrophysics, created a Hubble’s theory, which proposes that the speed of expansion of the space is proportional to the distance from the center of the universe, when he was in the field only two years. Furthermore, Nelson Bohr was able to establish an atomic model with energy level and contributed to the foundation of quantum mechanics when he was only 23 years old, which led him to be the main figure in the modern physics. These examples present that beginners can accomplish more than experts who have been working in the field for over 20 years. This might not be a common phenomenon, but it is not impossible.
In conclusion, experts tend to surpass beginners in terms of contributing to a field of inquiry due to the two reasons discussed above. However, I do concede that, in some exceptional cases, beginners may make more achievements than experts.