How much evidence?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Does it take more evidence to change a principle or theory of science than to establish it?

PhilX

[Ginkgo]

Does it take more evidence to change a principle or theory of science than to establish it?

PhilX

Thomas Kuhn in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" claims it does.

[Skip]

I think it depends on the temper of the times and the state of science.
In volatile periods, when discovery and invention are progressing rapidly, theories are questioned and debated and contested by many rivals. Then, it takes impressive proofs to establish any theory, and they are overturned as soon as their experimental data are found faulty, or hard to reproduce (and sometimes set back up again when another team gets the right equipment).
In arid period, when there is no new progress for a long time, standing theories become the dogma of an unproductive generation.

[The Voice of Time]

Does it take more evidence to change a principle or theory of science than to establish it?

PhilX

Seems quite intuitive it would depend on the dependency people had of the theory or principle in following their own goals, and the degree to which those people would be persuaded to give up on what they have.

Without evidence I think it's meaningless to speculate on something I think few people really have a global, cross-disciplinary understanding of.