Scientific Belief Trap

The trap into which scientist may fall, if they take their topic too earnest, i.e. if they

believe their theories to be true
put their reputation behind its truth.

If the theory turns out to be false (or simply scientifically less useful), they have the problem, that they 'promised', that it were true, i.e. others may have put effort into further elaborations based on this promise and may be disappointed if you change your mind.

Once you have fallen into this trap, you know why SmartPeopleStuckWithBadIdeas. They have to keep their promises and keep the theory and try to salvage it as good as possible, even if it clear, that there could be simpler ways to proceed. TheoriesDontDie? because they are false, but because their creators die (nicely said on ComplexAnalysis: "knowledge advances one funeral at a time").

Of course, everyone else should know that a theory is - well a theory and not a belief and nobody can promise its truth. In short, the problem is that our ScientificSociety? is far from perfect because it is based on guess what: on humans.

Refs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 - this is really interesting. It uses simple statistics on bias and positive predictive value to estimate that most presented research results are false (focus is on medical results).

This sounds to me like the mechanism by which progress is made, i.e. some scientist stake their reputation on a winner and others either don't commit themselves enough or put their money on the wrong horse. Who is to say that scientist A has fallen into a trap but scientist B is on the long and difficult journey required to find and form evidence? I'm not saying that traps don't exist, or that they are not regrettable when they do. Only that I can't imagine it is possible to (systematically) avoid the traps without simultaneously avoiding progress. ?- ChrisSteinbach

This might imply that there is no or even there can be no IdealScience making this a questionable ideal.

It implies no such thing. Noting the limitations of human practitioners does mean that IdealScience is possibly beyond any individual human, and likely any group small enough to be controlled by a cult of personality. However, Science as a whole is very much a social discipline involving a great many practitioners and a great deal of communication. -db

I agree. I retract my point. Instead I add that the last sentence should be stressed:

Is possible to (systematically) avoid the traps without simultaneously avoiding progress?

It is certainly theoretically possible... much like threading a needle in a haystack while wearing a blindfold is possible. I don't expect it is possible in practice. Lifespans and intelligences are limited, which implies that at least some scientists must take risks and thrust forward with half-formed ideas if we are to have any hope of seeing progress in our lifetimes (the others can fill out those ideas... make them fully formed). Egos are large, which means that if we aren't seeing progress in our lifetimes and by our efforts, we'd rather be doing something else. Resources, for the majority of us who lack the silver spoon, are ruled entirely by politics... which means we must market ourselves, stake our reputations, and make boisterous claims in order to acquire resources like any good politician or confidence man. All of us would love to see these solved ((longer lifespans + greater intelligence + smaller egos + more wealth) for everyone)... and it is possible, as we move forward through the centuries or millenia, that this happens. x_X But, once again, that's an unlikely possibility. -db

Is there something similar for Developers? DeveloperBeliefTrap

And politicians too?

CategoryPsychology