I suspect that withdrawing a paper probably counts, because “changed mind” is one reason a withdrawal could happen. However, I don’t personally know enough about academic publishing to rule out “got reason to expect negative results such as loss of reputation from not withdrawing paper, but still believe in its claims” as a comparable powerful reason to withdraw one. (Correction: I skimmed some journals’ retraction policies and reasons for retraction on lists of retracted articles, and now model retraction as “change of mind about whether the situation in which the science was attempted was capable of emitting valid results”. This feels to me like it doesn’t have the same social stigma as changing one’s conclusions in a way that admits having discovered and needed to correct a flaw in one’s own actual reasoning—I don’t think a “change of facts” is necessarily quite identical to the change of logic or thought implied by “change of mind”? This apparent distinction suggests that “changes of mind” could be usefully sorted into more categories than I’d considered when asking the original question.)
I think publishing a paper which disproves a claim which one had made in a prior paper would be an entirely unambiguous change of mind, demonstrating the skill of updating based on new evidence. I hope that happens often, but I don’t read a high enough volume of papers to personally see it.
I suspect (for reasons of seeing a back down as humiliating), that is more often that a change of mind happens when other researchers produce confounding evidence, (that is how science works), and you then just quietly accept it and move on. Citing papers supporting the alternative hypothesis in a later paper is a quieter way to signal that you have changed your mind. “Comment on comment” papers can be entertaining. Everything from howling outrage to excuses to commendable withdrawals.
“comment on comment” sounds like a delightful part of the internet! Are there any particularly memorable examples that you’d recommend someone new to them start with to get a feel for the genre, regardless of what field they happen to be in?
Ah, that’s fair. I figure sometimes people remember good jokes/memes, but if the retractions aren’t quite there, they wouldn’t be worth noting. Thank you for the link!
I suspect that withdrawing a paper probably counts, because “changed mind” is one reason a withdrawal could happen. However, I don’t personally know enough about academic publishing to rule out “got reason to expect negative results such as loss of reputation from not withdrawing paper, but still believe in its claims” as a comparable powerful reason to withdraw one.(Correction: I skimmed some journals’ retraction policies and reasons for retraction on lists of retracted articles, and now model retraction as “change of mind about whether the situation in which the science was attempted was capable of emitting valid results”. This feels to me like it doesn’t have the same social stigma as changing one’s conclusions in a way that admits having discovered and needed to correct a flaw in one’s own actual reasoning—I don’t think a “change of facts” is necessarily quite identical to the change of logic or thought implied by “change of mind”? This apparent distinction suggests that “changes of mind” could be usefully sorted into more categories than I’d considered when asking the original question.)I think publishing a paper which disproves a claim which one had made in a prior paper would be an entirely unambiguous change of mind, demonstrating the skill of updating based on new evidence. I hope that happens often, but I don’t read a high enough volume of papers to personally see it.
I suspect (for reasons of seeing a back down as humiliating), that is more often that a change of mind happens when other researchers produce confounding evidence, (that is how science works), and you then just quietly accept it and move on. Citing papers supporting the alternative hypothesis in a later paper is a quieter way to signal that you have changed your mind. “Comment on comment” papers can be entertaining. Everything from howling outrage to excuses to commendable withdrawals.
“comment on comment” sounds like a delightful part of the internet! Are there any particularly memorable examples that you’d recommend someone new to them start with to get a feel for the genre, regardless of what field they happen to be in?
I would have to do a fair bit of work to find them—for obvious reasons, they dont need to be added to any Endnote collection. A lot are, “yes, you found a error with our methods but when we fix it, it doesnt change the conclusions”—trans “bite your bum”.
https://retractionwatch.com/ can be a place to find the really bad stuff. (oh and I see a full blown public change of mind right now—https://retractionwatch.com/2021/05/06/rejection-overruled-retraction-ensues-when-annoyed-reviewer-does-deep-dive-into-data/ )
Ah, that’s fair. I figure sometimes people remember good jokes/memes, but if the retractions aren’t quite there, they wouldn’t be worth noting. Thank you for the link!
One quickly. http://www.ask-force.org/web/Global-Warming/moerner-comment-on-comment-2008.pdf is comment on comment. Read the Nerem et al comment http://www.aari.ru/docs/pub/070119/ner07.pdf which is fun. Some commentary here: https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=691#47808