On the dependence of initial conditions on temporal dynamics in position space

When commenting on James’ post “Fruit flies smell vibrations?” I was reminded of a discussion I heard on the radio recently, the discussion was on the nature of politics in general and its parlous incarnation in this country at the moment. The point was made that perhaps the greatest flaw of politics is the attitude towards changing ones position on an issue. The norm seems to be that as a politician you form an initial position (or your party forms one for you) and you defend that position as if your political career depends on it, irrespective of changing information. Science, at its best, does not fall into this mindset. However I believe there are shades of gray on this issue.

It is often the case, particularly when a scientific field is in its infancy, that results seemingly contradict each other (my favourite example of this will be the subject of my next post). Due to this apparent contradiction, the point at which one of the interpretations is more strongly supported by the evidence than another is almost always a subjective matter (initially at least). Hold onto your initial position too strongly and you can become blind to the obvious, while if you are too fickle you run the risk of falling victim to herd mentality. The history of science is full of example of both cases. That is, in which individuals have held onto ideas well beyond their use-by date, or in which they have been the subject of derision by their peers for their position only to be vindicated a decade on with a Nobel.

As with most things there is no hard and fast rule which can be followed. However I believe politicians should heed the wise words of Maynard Keynes: when criticised for changing his position on an issue he replied, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”