For the most part, I agree with you, Avan. I'm math and science oriented myself, and the importance of being "proven wrong" was shown distinctly in my most recent class which included, among other things, the origins of relativistic physics. In math and science, knowing that you're wrong means having a shot at a more accurate answer. The tooltip from
this XKCD comic illustrates this best:
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right."(For those who don't know, relativistic physics came about when it was shown, against most people's current beliefs, that light did not travel via an invisible, potentially flowing medium. Einstein then used this fact to prove relativity, which then led to conclusions that implied slight but important changes to almost every aspect of basic Newtonian physics, which was the then current standard. Relativistic physics is more accurate than Newtonian physics for near-light relative speeds; Newtonian physics ended up being an approximation of relativistic physics for low (in comparison to light) speeds. If the "luminous aether" (or light medum) had never been debunked, Einstein could have never proven relativistic physics.)
There is a particular point upon which I disagree, though. The transition of one's paradigm of the world from one state to another may not be worth the possibility of transitioning to a more correct state in some cases. Many people base things such as their moral code, their sense of identity, their place in society, and their emotional stability on their knowledge of the world. If, for instance, a devout Christian were to be successfully convinced that there is no such thing as a Christian God (I do not wish to imply that either position is "correct" on this matter; I just use this as an example of a drastic paradigm change.), there would be several consequences. As many of this person's beliefs on morality were based on things pertaining to God (the Ten Commandments, other Bible text, etc.), this person must now find new reasons to maintain the rules of their morality or be prone to their morals eroding. A new basis for morality could be achieved through conversion to a different religion. It could also be done with an alternative system such as personal values or the law, but there is a chance that it might not happen at all. Even worse, there is a chance that this individual's moral system might be rebuilt by a self interested or malignant entity (such as a cult or gang), as having an unstable moral system increases susceptibility to this possibility.
Additionally, depending on the original devoutness of this individual and his or her peers, the newfound belief that God does not exist may mean a choice between the risk of peer ostracization or deceiving peers about personal beliefs. This individual's new life will undoubtedly be different, but it won't necessarily be better. It may not have been appropriate to change this individual's beliefs in the first place, given this uncertainty.
This isn't meant to be an argument against instigating or undergoing paradigm change. Rather, it's meant to show that there is a cost to changing paradigms proportionate to the degree they are influential to an individual's psychology.
I'm sorry if my second argument makes anybody uncomfortable or upset. It certainly has made me particularly uncomfortable in the past, particularly considering its nearly direct dissonance with the first argument.
