In a recent seminar that I was given, a scientist in the audience was offended when a slide I was showing stated that people will ignore data/information that does not match their model. He asked me if I was implying the scientists ignore data.
He went on to tell me that he would get fired in his job if he did that, and that a scientist would "never ignore data."
I was intrigued by how strongly he reacted, but decided that it enough off topic to not pursue it.
And now I run into this interesting "The Truth wears off" article.
Here is an except from the article:
But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants.
How does one explain such phenomena? Does this support my premise about seeing in the data what matches our model? It sure is one explaination!
Where spokes persons for science, religion, philosophy, mathematics, and spirituality come to talk.
