this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
92 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43810 readers
1 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holding out on a belief when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary is definitively unscientific. What don't we call people who are unscientific about their methodologies?
I guess I would have called them "bad scientists" -- scientists who are bad at their job and hold everyone back. But still scientists.
For instance they correctly applied the scientific method in most other cases. They just were blind to or intentionally obstructive to certain things.
I try my best to be rational and apply Bayes' theorem now and then, but I am sure I am still missing some invisible monsters which will make me look arrogant or foolish in the future. I don't experiment much with software I am unfamiliar with, even if it could improve things at work. I do now and then of course, but should I allocate more time to trying new things? Yeah probably, but I don't, and my job still gets done.
I don't disagree that people can be stubborn and refuse to accept reality. This whole thread is known as Planck's Principle.
OP asked what "what possible misunderstanding of nature could make current academics look like flat earthers". I think it's implied that they're talking about a scientific consensus today which we later find to be flawed, in which case I don't think that anything would make current academics look like flat earthers. The difference is, literally no flat earther lived in such a time where the scientific consensus said the world was flat; they all became convinced of a falsehood after it was known to be a falsehood, which is orthogonal to Planck's Principle.
So I guess the answer to OP's question is: if an academic becomes convinced of a falsehood with full knowledge of an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it is false, then they would look like a flat earther. But I don't think that's the situation they've laid out.
OK this makes sense to me now.