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?
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.
No, the possibility still exists because the current academic community continues to exist even into the future, where a breakthrough is possible. At the very least you are being pedantic.
An appropriate level of pedantry, I think. You asked for everyone for their opinion, it hardly seems appropriate for you to call me pedantic for providing just that.
It also feels like maybe you didn’t pick up what I was putting down, because the “breakthrough” scenario is irrelevant. The important part is: did science already accept X as true (read: highly probable) at the time that a person decided they believe X is false? Because to me, that’s what makes someone “look like a flat earther”. But I can’t fault someone for not being convinced by some evidence, and choosing instead to stick with (what they believe to be) a null hypothesis.
You’re using too strict a definition of what makes a flat earther. Flat eathers are characterized by many different things but their defining feature is their refusal accept evidence that disproves their belief. My phrasing does not disclude this interpretation.
And see, I think that’s too broad, because literally everyone is guilty of holding onto a belief that they formed before they had enough information, however small.
Have you ever driven one route from point A to B, but taken a completely different route from B to A, both directions believing you are taking the fastest route? Maybe it’s doublethink, maybe we just got in a habit and never reconciled the conflicting beliefs, or maybe we think the evidence we’ve been presented with is not a representative sample of reality. Maybe a map shows one route to be obviously faster both ways, but you think “well once you factor in the lights, and the number of turns, and the traffic at the times of day I take each route, it makes sense to take different routes each way. These are hard to account for on a map, and how I do it feels shorter, so I’m going to keep doing what I think is best regardless of what this data says.”
To me, the “defining feature” of a flat earther is accepting a false belief after it’s been amply demonstrated to you to be false. It’s not something you didn’t have enough evidence about, but now you do, it’s something you had overwhelming evidence for, but reject it all. That is not something we all do every day, that is potentially delusional behavior.
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?
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.
No, the possibility still exists because the current academic community continues to exist even into the future, where a breakthrough is possible. At the very least you are being pedantic.
An appropriate level of pedantry, I think. You asked for everyone for their opinion, it hardly seems appropriate for you to call me pedantic for providing just that.
It also feels like maybe you didn’t pick up what I was putting down, because the “breakthrough” scenario is irrelevant. The important part is: did science already accept X as true (read: highly probable) at the time that a person decided they believe X is false? Because to me, that’s what makes someone “look like a flat earther”. But I can’t fault someone for not being convinced by some evidence, and choosing instead to stick with (what they believe to be) a null hypothesis.
You’re using too strict a definition of what makes a flat earther. Flat eathers are characterized by many different things but their defining feature is their refusal accept evidence that disproves their belief. My phrasing does not disclude this interpretation.
And see, I think that’s too broad, because literally everyone is guilty of holding onto a belief that they formed before they had enough information, however small.
Have you ever driven one route from point A to B, but taken a completely different route from B to A, both directions believing you are taking the fastest route? Maybe it’s doublethink, maybe we just got in a habit and never reconciled the conflicting beliefs, or maybe we think the evidence we’ve been presented with is not a representative sample of reality. Maybe a map shows one route to be obviously faster both ways, but you think “well once you factor in the lights, and the number of turns, and the traffic at the times of day I take each route, it makes sense to take different routes each way. These are hard to account for on a map, and how I do it feels shorter, so I’m going to keep doing what I think is best regardless of what this data says.”
To me, the “defining feature” of a flat earther is accepting a false belief after it’s been amply demonstrated to you to be false. It’s not something you didn’t have enough evidence about, but now you do, it’s something you had overwhelming evidence for, but reject it all. That is not something we all do every day, that is potentially delusional behavior.
This is still covered by my phrasing.
Yes. I’m saying my definition is a stricter subset of your definition, and that your definition is too broad because it includes literally everyone.