<
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/its-almost-impossible-to-correct-scientific-papers-once-they-are-published/>
'The classic model of scientific progress is that the field advances
when new findings contradict or supersede old ones. But a new study
reveals that this process isn't working today—at least, not in
scientific journals, where most data is shared with colleagues. Indeed,
the researchers found that "rebuttals scarcely alter scientific
perceptions about the original papers."'
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, this parallels the way it works in the
general media also. Once someone has formed an opinion, they're loath
to give much credence to rebuttals because changing your mind is
difficult: it requires overcoming some cognitive dissonance to admit
that the view you previously held was mistaken, however legitimately.
Particularly if you had a positive response to learning the original
information - obviously especially when it agrees with your existing
worldview, but also even just being excited by learning something new.
You don't want to devalue that previous positive response.
Taking the view that any new information is exciting and positive, even
contradictory or opposing information, is a way to help mitigate this
natural response.
Via Emmanuel Taban.
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
