Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Conventional wisdom and the backfire effect
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
The discussion of the Unicorn edge, along with the past discussion of the chipbreaker versus high cutting angles, perhaps 18th Century vs more modern steel, and a recent discussion on rounded chipbreaker leading edges ... all remind me of the neuroscience area referred to the "backfire effect".
Here is a little fun and education rolled into one ... 
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Regards from Perth
Derek
Entertaining
Jim Matthews
Two things, both regarding credulity :
Most of us have a static Worldview formed in our early twenties.
We're (as a species) inept at spotting liars in our midst.
****
I believe the current state of affairs regarding intellectual disagreement is because so much information comes at us and hucksters are aware of our cooperative nature.
****
People (who are otherwise secure and comfortable) will elevate intellectual challenges to the level of existential threat, so that something holds that place.
When we were kids, Nuclear War held the top slot.
Re: Conventional wisdom and the backfire effect
Philip F Duffy
OH, what fun to be made learned by, a gentleman of such esteem, and in a historical aspect of America. Yet he lives in a beautiful country, like ours that is on the other side of the world! Thank you Derek.- -P
Re: Conventional wisdom and the backfire effect
John in NM
We see it at work all the time.
A group of instrument designers half the country away has leadership that is absolutely intransigent in their beliefs, prompting similar intransigence from those of us at the site where the product of their labors will be installed and used. Both sides naturally think the other is "a bit misguided" to paraphrase the professors involved (wrench turners put it a bit differently 
).
Slippery!!
David Weaver
don't forget, he came from South Africa before then, so we really have no idea what to think of his background!!
(never looked into GW's teeth, but would've been surprised if at the very least, he hadn't had some carved out of something nicer for him, like walrus ivory or something smooth. making a new set out of "used teeth" doesn't sound terribly surprising either, and doubt that practice was done only by GW).
A distinction to be made...
Jim Matthews
There's a difference between untestable assertions and Science.
The marketplace will cast off bogus ideas that cost money, lives or time.
Revisions of History are maleable and more common than we acknowledge.
James Loewen wrote an unheralded expose on this. It can be very difficult reading, and to the OP's point.
Missed it...
John in NM
I'm not talking about science or the marketplace.
I'm talking about engineering!
The trouble is that in these zoom meetings we are debating the merits of different approaches that would be testable - but the goal is to work out the best path forward without taking the time to test, re-design, test again, etc. That makes the debate akin to one of un-testable hypotheses. The merits of such an approach as this are open to debate, but that is not the point here.
The part that gives it an especially irrational flavor is that both sides are pushing the approach that maximizes their own convenience, unfortunately at the expense of the other party. From my perspective, long term maintainability and convenience in yearly maintenance is more important than small efficiency gains in single event manufacturing of an instrument. The instrument team's perspective is pretty much the exact opposite.
I see people's behavior (including my own, to be fair) in this situation to be remarkably similar to that outlined in Derek's link.
Is this debate internal?
Jim Matthews
"From my perspective, long term maintainability and convenience in yearly maintenance is more important than small efficiency gains in single event manufacturing of an instrument. "
No argument, there
The institution, as a whole, is biased toward containing fixed costs and raising margins where profits can be measured.
It's been ages since anybody paid me wages. This points to some unpleasant realizations I had, in my last working for.
Management consider me and my staff to be a "cost center" and annually reduced our budget, while increasing our task count.
When the precarious nature of liability and exposure to lawsuits was raised (hospital environment) I was reprimanded. The cost of settling lawsuits was less than the cost of proper maintenance schedules, replacing depreciated assets and SOTA methods.
It came down to money, naturally.
My departure lead to a cascade of system failures, a few reportable incidents and an eventual merger with a more competent organization.
Those that wanted me out are *still* employed in senior positions - unscathed.
Management isn't interested in justice, only peace and quiet. If you're right in your assertions, but the consequences bear no institutional costs - it isn't likely to be seen as relevant at the director's level.
*****
I think the OP is more to the point of voluntary interactions, rather than institutional ones. Few organizations operate openly, with all concerned on equally footing.
Re: Conventional wisdom and the backfire effect
Eric Rathhaus
Thanks, Derek. I enjoyed reading it.
Re: Conventional wisdom and the backfire effect
Mike In Los Angeles
Of all places, the Hand Tool Forum as a platform for the ideology of mind and soul as machine! 
Re: Is this debate internal?
John in NM
I had the impression that the material in Derek's link is much more general than you seem to think. I did not interpret it as specific to any type of interactions so much as an observed negative reaction to information which conflicts with any strongly held belief. What I describe observing at work fits that description, and I find the explanation for the tenacity with which people fight against such unwelcome challenges to their beliefs to be well explained by the theory Derek outlined. It is always interesting to read something like this and then be able to draw parallels to what you've observed personally - informal parallels of course, just adds a little sense to an otherwise perplexing world.
That is what management is for
Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
Each side advocates their proposal. Management decides among the choices. Lack of management leads to bickering.
Correct...
John in NM
Management's role is also to encourage compromise. Ultimately problems of this sort are management failures.
Re: Oh Darn
Curt Putnam
That helps to explain some of the political dysfunction in this country but presents a rather dystopian view of our ability to rapidly adapt and absorb new ideas.
Re: Entertaining
Frank D. in Montreal
"We're (as a species) inept at spotting liars in our midst."
That's because we're hard-wired for narrative, not for rational argument or logic.A good story will work much better than a good argument to move someone to action. Narratives are the basis of cultures and civilizations as well as nations. One "fact" that academia can't afford to take into account is that logic/reason accounts on average for 10-20% of someone's ability to convince. Appeal to emotions and apparent trustworthiness accounts for most of the rest. Academic discourse hasn't changed despite these findings.
Markets are also to a large part based on narrative. I tell my business students that they can come up with the best analysis of any company or market, it won't be heeded if they can't insert it into a good narrative. The whole idea of value relies on the construction of a future that seems plausible. This is one definition of literature.
Re: Entertaining
Les Groeller
Yes everyone likes a good story or a “simple story” that explains something complex, whether it is a valid representation of the facts or not...therein lies the danger of narratives.
An interesting read from a recent Financial Post on this very subject...
Information overload and tribal responses
Jim Matthews
I think there are multiple issues to unpack, there.
The current generation in North America has seen wrenching change in their lifetimes.
The search for assuring support opens the door for manipulation.
We're built for cooperation in groups, and that can be twisted to hatred, easily.
That's been fomenting since the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed and worsening during consolidation.
*****
The problems arise when assertions can't be tested, and become matters of Faith.
Such is the making of Myth out of History.
*****
The current issue arising around a sharpening technique *can* be tested, which means
Science will out. If a method can be reproduced, and the results measured it works.