But that is precisely how science is done! (the geek in me has to say): by rejecting the "status quo" in favor of something new.Let me start by saying that I find the adoption of the "change my mind" meme as being a counter productive means of discourse by asserting a dominant stance and requiring it be overcome.
An established "null hypothesis", Ho (N "naught" the status quo), is challenged by an "alternative hypothesis" H1, by means of data that tries to statistically debunk ("reject") the old null.
If the new data "does not reject" the old hypothesis, we stay with the status quo. If the new data "rejects" the old idea when statistically comparing it with the alternative (with an accepted % degree of confidence "alpha"), we move on to the new thing.
Thus I thought there was merit in the "change my mind" premise of the OP:
If you don't bring about new data, I ain't going to change my old beliefs with which I have been operating fine until now.
Science is not built on discovering truths, that is impossible with the tools of science. Science is the data driven rejection of falsehoods.
The airplane you fly in (the building in which you stand, the drug you take for your ailment, the vaccine we may take for Covid? ) is not built based on proof that it will fly, it is instead put together based on data that REJECTS (with an acceptable degree of certainty, say alpha=1%) that it will CRASH. Alpha, btw, is the "probability of wrongly rejecting".
Sorry for the geeky dissertation.
Last edited: