They may prefer playing modern instruments, because this is what they are use to doing. It’s what feels most comfortable to them and familiar.
Not sure if it counts but:
In the field of computer programming, there have been many paradigm shifts. Some of these have been good techniques superseded by better ones (which of course doesn’t fit the OP).
But other times, they are the whole industry basically deciding that a particular technique once preached as safe and/or efficient is actually the opposite and they were arguably better off before having thought of it.
Examples that come to mind are Hungarian notation (as it was popularly interpreted; I’m aware the original idea was misunderstood) and the Singleton pattern.
Although, in my view, this is mostly because computer science seems to always be about absolutes. Nuanced views like “This can be useful sometimes, but mustn’t be overused” or “This technique is probably not optimal, but rarely makes much difference in practice, so is not worth foaming at the mouth about” don’t seem to get a look in.
But the end result of those thousands of years of rational inquiry is what the average Christian is taught, and what guides his actions: “Thou shalt not . . . .”
The difficult thing with this thread is not knowing why the experts think what they do. For a current example I recently faced, I didn’t really see the big deal about why computer scientists are pretty sure that P =/= NP. So some harder problems might be solvable relatively easily, not a huge deal. I thought P=NP had a decent shot at being proven.
Then I learned about the polynomial hierarchy, and while I concede that whether or not P=NP is an open question, I can also pretty confidently state that just from a philosophical standpoint it would be completely ludicrous if P did, in fact, equal NP. (The simplified reasoning is that proving P=NP also entails that proving the existence of something is exactly as hard as proving something about everything, and that the statement “there exists an x such that for all y there exists a z such that for all…” is exactly as hard to prove as the statement “there exists an x such that…”).
I think it is widely guessed that
P [SIZE=“4”]≠ NP[/SIZE]
is, like Gödel’s famous G, an undecidable statement.
This is probably more of an IMHO thread but…
One answer is the view shared by the great majority of NT historians that Jesus’s existence is a well-established historical fact.
[runs away]
The linked article is just a wish-washy offend-nobody filler piece published to attract advertising. The underlighing evidence referenced is much stronger. Here is another example from 2009:
That article goes on to suggest (wildly restating here) that Church and Family might have an effect, but not Driver Ed.
Here’s soething similar from my car association:
The Effectiveness of Driver Training and Education - 2011.pdf
The problem is as suggested by the OP. No expert thinks that Driver Ed has any effect, but lots of people think that they are expert on education, including (but not limited to) many teachers, and even more random internet posters like me…
…Surgery is clearly full of expert surgens who are not as good as they think they are, and who offer treatment that is less effective than they think it is. It takes a good deal of self-belief to take a knife and cut someone open… Speaking of which, whats the opinion on Vertebroplasty these days? Last I looked there was some dissagreement: some of the experts must have been wrong.
I hope this is a joke about programming languages, because otherwise it makes no sense (and is also factually wrong). :dubious:
I seem to recall something about Galileo having a hard time convincing people that two objects of different size would fall at the same rate.
Those sound like things that a lot of casual musicians may believe. I don’t think they’re things that most experts in the field believe.
Of course. He wrote a very widely-read book about programming in Windows which included a “Hello, world!” program to introduce people to how Windows 95 GUI programming was going to work.