Nobody likes being wrong.Whether it’s losing a bet or answering a question incorrectly in class, being wrong is embarrassing as it can be seen as an indication that one is either unintelligent or very gullible. Considering this, one would assume people would strive to form their opinions and beliefs solely on cold, hard facts that have been confirmed by science, reason, reportage, etc. After all, reason and rationality are supposedly important values in modern society. That is, of course, not the case, for people throughout history have managed to maintain false beliefs for long periods of time even after newer, more realistic ideas have come into existence. As a result of such behavior, outdated and disproven ideas and theories survive far longer than they seemingly should due to several psychological phenomena that make humans stubborn.
One method by which someone can maintain a false belief is by unconsciously remaining ignorant of evidence to the contrary. This process, called ‘biased assimilation’, causes humans to “see the world through thick, horn-rimmed glasses forged of belief and smudged with attitudes and ideologies,” filtering out anything that would bring their views into question. (McRaney) In other words, people tend to skew their view of the world to support their pre-existing beliefs. For instance, when scientists had people watch Bob Dole debate Bill Clinton in 1996, they found supporters before the debate tended to believe their preferred candidate won. (McRaney) They went into the debate with a preconceived notion of what would happen and simply watched to confirm their expectations. If people slant their experiences of the world to fit their pre-existing views, it becomes nearly impossible for them to develop their beliefs as new evidence comes out.
Even if people do come into contact with evidence contrary to their positions, the fight is far from over because of the Backfire Effect. According to the Backfire Effect, “when [one’s] deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, [their] belief gets stronger.” (McRaney) Indeed, in order to avoid being wrong, people grow strongly defensive and protective of their beliefs, even when presented with seemingly irrefutable evidence to the contrary. A group of scientists studying this effect at the University of Michigan in 2006 executed an experiment in which participants read a fake news article purporting that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a false claim. The participants then read another article correcting the mistake of the previous edition, and the scientists gaged their reactions. Those opposed to the war in Iraq strongly rejected the first article and employed the second article as their support. On the other hand, not only did supporters of the war tend to agree with the first article, but they even reported “being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.” (McRaney)
How then can people defend their false beliefs when challenged directly? Individuals put in this sort of situation very often resort to emphasizing so-called ‘unfalsifiable’ reasons for holding their belief. (O’Grady) Such unfalsifiable reasons cannot be proven or disproven by scientific inquiry and thus are nearly impossible to refute. For instance, many opponents of the death penalty feel that way because they believe it violates a fundamental human right to life. This reasoning is clearly based entirely on opinion, with no way to definitively prove its validity or lack thereof. Thus, very often when people read a passage that contradicts their viewpoint, they view the work as more opinionated than factual, leaving room for them to maintain their stance. (O’Grady) For example, a group of researchers recruited 174 volunteers with different views on same-sex marriage to read one of two passages about children raised by same-sex partners. One of the passages claimed that such children turned out equally as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents, while the other asserted they had worse outcomes. The researchers found that participants who read a passage contradicting their beliefs declared the findings as purely matters of opinion. On the other hand, those who read a passage supporting their beliefs emphasized the factuality of the findings. Clearly, the Backfire Effect and unfalsifiability allow people to hold their beliefs with more conviction, especially in matters of politics, religion, and, of course, science.
In truth, practically every scientific discovery or theory put forth throughout history has met with some form of resistance or other from various groups. Surprisingly, however, though many people point to religion as a powerful opponent to new scientific developments, they often fail to realize that scientists themselves repeatedly oppose those same discoveries. (Barber)There are many famous examples of this inter-science friction between old and new theories. As is widely known, the Catholic Church vehemently opposed the revolutionary heliocentric model of the solar system at its onset, forcing Galileo to renounce such claims as heresy and delaying widespread acceptance for years. Nevertheless, after Copernicus’ publishing of De Revolutionibus, it was Tycho Brahe’s strong opposition to the new idea that greatly delayed its acceptance within the astronomy community at the time. (Barber) When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859, some of his greatest detractors came from the ranks of the French biologists of the time, who refused to accept the new theory because evolution had never been observed in action in nature. (Farley) Even Louis Pasteur’s work on fermentation was at first widely rejected by scientists who maintained that it was a purely chemical process, not a biological one. (Barber) Undoubtedly, scientists, widely fitted with the stereotype of “open-mindedness”, are only human and thus fall prey to the same psychological traps as everyone else.
Unfortunately for humanity, scientific discoveries almost never immediately gain widespread acceptance, greatly slowing the advancement of the human race. In the words of Hermann von Helmholtz, “the greatest benefactors of mankind usually do not obtain a full reward during their life-time…new ideas need the more time for gaining general assent the more original they are.” (Barber) Because of humans’ utter stubbornness, it generally takes years before revolutionary new ideas can take hold in society, as the unbelievers gradually pass away and leave the next generation, which is usually more accepting of the new idea because they are more familiar with it. Woe to any scientist who underestimates humanity’s obstinacy.
Bibliography
Barber, Bernard. “Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery.”
Farley, John. “The Initial Reactions of French Biologists to Darwin's "Origin of Species".”
McRaney, David. “The Backfire Effect.”