This is a "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" scenario: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/boo

This is a "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" scenario: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo131797... In any field, be it engineering or the sciences, accomplished and intelligent practitioners find themselves resisting new technology for reasons that are ultimately inscrutable and personal --- for example, fear of the unknown or fear of new technology devaluing their in the old. Because these practitioners are experienced and intelligent, they're able to construct elaborate plausible-sounding technical arguments against the new technologies. But since they're starting with the opposition and working backwards to a rationale, what these practitioners do when they argue against the new technology isn't so much science as apologetics. Apologies can be frustrating because, superficially, they resemble earnest argumentation --- but because, in apologetics, the authors starts with a conclusion and works backwards to an argument, an apology contains insidious logical traps that are difficult to detect and disarm, especially when the new technology (as all new technologies do) contain genuine gaps and flaws. It's because of this dynamic that many fields advance "one retirement at a time". We should all make a conscious effort, when evaluating new technology, to distinguish earnest technical criticisms from justifications for feeling averse to change --- and consciously suppress the latter.