Oh, please. It’s not the case with science. This effect arises from human nature, not pre-quantum theory science culture. And whatever lesson Feynman May have learned, academia (including science academia) can hardly claim to have universally learned it.

That would be because sufficiently controversial conclusions in the social sciences can upend social stability (endangering the ability of social science work to be performed) and serve as the justification for the infringement of human rights.

That's bad, if there was any confusion.

As another comment puts it, findings that buck conventional thought to the point that they can prompt irrevocable ramifications better have an "unimpeachable, reproducible path." And that's difficult when so much of social science is based on statistical modeling of phenomena that are multifaceted and difficult to control for, and not actually produced by deduction.

>That would be because sufficiently controversial conclusions in the social sciences can upend social stability (endangering the ability of social science work to be performed) and serve as the justification for the infringement of human rights.

This is assuming the current incorrect findings aren't being used as justifications for infringement of human rights currently. For example findings that might relate to rehabilitation for crimes and how long we sentence someone to prison, or if we even sentence someone to prison at all. Findings related to forced institutionalization of someone deemed too mentally ill to be allowed their freedom. Findings that are used to justify existing laws that see people put in prison for things they perhaps shouldn't be.

Using such an impeccable standard for changes when such wasn't used for the existing social structure isn't justifiable.

> For example findings that might relate to rehabilitation for crimes and how long we sentence someone to prison, or if we even sentence someone to prison at all. Findings related to forced institutionalization of someone deemed too mentally ill to be allowed their freedom.

Before cargo cult science becomes a problem here, we need to actually accept and adopt evidence based management of these institutions. Currently policies in these areas are primarily driven by tradition, rhetoric and anecdotes, not scientific inquiry.

>This is assuming the current incorrect findings aren't being used as justifications for infringement of human rights currently.

...No, it doesn't assume that. The notion that circumstances are imperfect doesn't doesn't preclude a drastic change from making things worse.

There is ample evidence that: - there is no physical embodiment of "free will" - everything in the physical world is deterministic, although at the quantum level, "statistically deterministic with random sampling"

Thus, one cannot be said to "commit a crime," only that the particles in one's brain and one's body happened to be in a configuration and receive interactions with other stimuli such that those actions physically occurred.

We already know these things, but we ain't updating our justice system to account for this.

You're making the mistake of projecting the deterministic nature of "machine level" causality onto the ability of the scripting language that is human agency to interact with the world in ways that can be characterized as "good" or "bad." Which isn't to say that compassion for the sinner and acknowledgement of how in thrall we all are to circumstance shouldn't be encouraged. Just, high-level, there is choice, if only because the deterministic switches are black boxed.