Scientific Hypocrisy - A debate

[Existentialist1844]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Actually, your example about Einstein and relativity reminds me of Freud and Psychoanalysis. Whenever someone would stray from Psychoanalysis, Freud would cut off all contact with them. He didn't like when people proposed new theories, especially those against Psychoanalysis. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[AshtonBlack]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Actually, your example about Einstein and relativity reminds me of Freud and Psychoanalysis. Whenever someone would stray from Psychoanalysis, Freud would cut off all contact with them. He didn't like when people proposed new theories, especially those against Psychoanalysis. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Still, psychoanalysis is arguably still a pretty subjective field though. Anything that deals with the "mind" on that level (as opposed to the direct biological ones), is bound to be open to interpritation.

[Existentialist1844]

Hm, what if someone clings to a particular set of scientific ideas even though it's been proven wrong? Wouldn't that be a sign of hypocrisy?

In most cases it's a sign that a scientist (say, Einstein) who has become an expert and perhaps was a pioneer in some scientific field (say, theories of special and general relativity), and become so entrenched in the relevant paradigms that they find it impossible to accommodate new ones (say, quantum mechanics) proposed by newcomers (say, Niels Bohr), and even though they cannot argue against that shift, feel compelled to dismiss it with a hand waving gesture (say, "God doesn't play dice").

Yes, I know that quantum mechanics does not exactly disprove the theory of relativity, but I hope you get the general drift: Old dogs and new tricks kind of thing.

Actually, your example about Einstein and relativity reminds me of Freud and Psychoanalysis. Whenever someone would stray from Psychoanalysis, Freud would cut off all contact with them. He didn't like when people proposed new theories, especially those against Psychoanalysis. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Still, psychoanalysis is arguably still a pretty subjective field though. Anything that deals with the "mind" on that level (as opposed to the direct biological ones), is bound to be open to interpritation.

Of course, but that's why he had many dissidents. Granted, the other theories are still open to interpretation, but they view the individual from a more holistic approach, which seems to be the current trend.

[Hermit]

The soft sciences have additional problems, all pretty much stemming from the many - often incommensurate - assumptions concerning "human nature" that can form the basis of any of them, and none of which can be tested with anywhere near the rigour of, say, physics or chemistry. A discussion between a psycho-analyst and a behaviourist would soon come to an impasse because they cannot even agree on the fundamentals, on what a human being is. This applies to history, sociology, economy and politics as well.

The Pooh Perplex by Frederick C. Crews is an amusing illustration on just how many (often) mutually exclusive interpretations of a single subject are possible. It's a slim, easy to read book, yet lots of food for thought. You could probably read it in a couple of hours, or so, then think about what it means and what consequences it might have for your world view for several hundred more. Fritz Stern (editor) does the same, but more analytically and academically in The Varieties of History from Voltaire to the Present. If that is a bit too heavy going, try What is History? by E. H. Carr. I recommend those books for the same reason: They broaden the mind.