Einstein's Change of Mind: How Science Differs from Daily Life

[pbody]

1. In daily life, people are often praised for maintaining some particular point of view for the courage of their convictions. A change of mind is seen as a sign of weakness. How is that different in science

Homework Equations

Well I was reading something at one time that Einstein changed his point of view for something or another because of somebody elses insight but went back to his original theory. I think it was in relativity.

I don't know what people were saying of him at the time.

The Attempt at a Solution

In all honesty I think it has no different outcome, people are people. People judge from and dissect the person who is wrong and define him or her as incompetent.

 

[cepheid]

I think that this question is getting at something a little bit more specific. In particular, you should think carefully about the role that empirical evidence plays in the scientific method. If you held certain beliefs about nature, and I presented you with physical evidence that was contrary to those beliefs, what would be your response? What do you think would be the response of a scientist, or the most "scientific" course of action to take in this situation?

 

[pbody]

I think that this question is getting at something a little bit more specific. In particular, you should think carefully about the role that empirical evidence plays in the scientific method. If you held certain beliefs about nature, and I presented you with physical evidence that was contrary to those beliefs, what would be your response? What do you think would be the response of a scientist, or the most "scientific" course of action to take in this situation?

To reevaluate the circumstances and find a more competent approach, if I or a "scientist" was incorrect if there was proof of what I believed to be incorrect accept what was being presented and check to the best of my capabilities, if what I perceive to be correct is in fact correct well I guess if there was physical proof than there would be no more correcting but if it were an equation than perhaps a few more looks.

 

[cepheid]

Uh, okay, well I had trouble interpreting what you wrote above, which is partly because it had almost no punctuation. In any case, the point I was trying to get at was this. In science, it is perfectly *okay* to change your opinion when faced with contrary evidence. Not only that, but you *must* do this. It would be unscientific to continue to cling to your old beliefs or conclusions when they have been shown to be false by experiment. (Assuming, of course, that these experimental findings are valid and reproducible).

 

[pbody]

Uh, okay, well I had trouble interpreting what you wrote above, which is partly because it had almost no punctuation. In any case, the point I was trying to get at was this. In science, it is perfectly *okay* to change your opinion when faced with contrary evidence. Not only that, but you *must* do this. It would be unscientific to continue to cling to your old beliefs or conclusions when they have been shown to be false by experiment. (Assuming, of course, that these experimental findings are valid and reproducible).

Yes I do that a lot too, I carry a lot of run on sentences. I agree with you completely. If I said water was acid, yet acid burned skin. Water didn't burn my skin therefore it could not be acid. I would have to change my train of thought, because acid would burn my skin.

I was interpreting the question, I believe on a more basic social level. Where if you are wrong you are wrong forever. Which might or might not happen with in the science community.