Right, wrong, and switching opinions

[William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>]

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, David Dockstader wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:45:56 -0500 (EST) Donald E. Simanek said:
> > Alistair Frasier made another comment which is worth pondering. He said
> > it's easy to teach new things. What's hard, nearly impossible, is to
> > correct something someone has leared which is wrong, but they are
> > convinced its right. After the age of puberty, he said, it's impossible
> > for someone to unlearn or correct the wrong explanations they are
> > convinced are right.
>
> I must strongly disagree with this statement.  First, as has been pointed out
> many times on this list the use of the words correct and wrong is totally bogus
> However, ignoring that, if one has considered a problem carefully an has any
> understanding of what is going on, when one is exposed to a new idea that is
> insightful, it is much easier to recognize its value than if the probem had
> never been considered before.

I believe that Alistair Frasier is talking about the general public, not
physics educators.  Physics teachers are professional paradigm shifters,
they don't count!  Also, he was discussing a particular type of concept. 
Not concepts which are naive and can be improved by new information, but
concepts which are taught in school but which seriously conflict with
reality, and which cannot be altered because their supporters have too
much invested in them to admit their falsity.  To change opinions, the
"believer" must not only admit to having made a mistake, but also must
face the unpleasant facts that not only is the idea is wrong, but the
teacher who originally communicated it was wrong, the textbooks which
support it are wrong, and the thousands of other people who share that
concensus belief are wrong. It's far easier to find ways to justify or to
ignore flaws in a particular concept than it is to confront such traumatic
information.  These sorts of "wrong ideas" are the subject of this quote
from Tolstoy: 

  "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
  greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
  obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
  conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
  they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
  thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Examples?  The "greenhouse" one isn't that hot a topic.  Frasier's page
points out a big one: try to convince the general public that falling
raindrops don't have sharp points.  Can't be done, the mistake has spread
too widely.  Try to convince people that coriolus force has little to do
with toilet flushes and bathtub drains.  An uphill battle, to say the
least.

Phys-L is not immune to this sort of thing.  Explanation of airfoils. 
(The forbidden phrase!)  ;)  The "shape vs. attack-angle" battle has raged
here on and off for ages.  How many have switched sides?  How many would
ADMIT to switching sides?  I think it would have been easier to convert
the the medieval Church to Heliocentrism.

Fraiser might go a bit too far with his word "impossible."  It's not
impossible to shift these sorts of errors, it just takes decades.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L