If and when counter-evidence brought to his/her notice for any concepts or theories he has been promoting or supporting, isn’t it a moral and ethical obligation of any researcher to address the counter-evidence? Obviously, it is unethical and dishonest to ignore or hide such counter-evidence for any personal gains. Any scientific or engineering discipline is no different from mythology or a cult, if large number of researchers and scientists deliberately ignore or hide such counter-evidence. What is the difference between a scientist and a cult member?
But what would you do, if openly supporting or acknowledging Truth (i.e. counter-evidence) could ruin your reputation? For example, about 450 years ago, even if a researcher were to realize that “the Earth is not static (at the center)” by investigating the counter-evidence, openly supporting the Truth must have destroyed his/her reputation or even faced criminal persecution and punishment. Isn’t it moral obligation of every researcher to fight against such cult culture?
Please keep in the mind that geocentric paradox had been evolved for over 1500 years (due to relying on a 2000 year old flawed belief “the Earth is static”) and was deeply entrenched conventional wisdom 450 years ago, so saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Assume a critical sub-discipline of your scientific or engineering discipline ended up as the geocentric paradox of your scientific or engineering discipline (e.g. by relying on similar flawed belief).
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” .. Arthur Schopenhauer.
“all great truths begin as blasphemies” … George Bernard Shaw
What would you do, if counter-evidence (for concepts or theories you support and rely or use in your work) is brought to your notice? It could ruin your reputation or career (e.g. your promotion might be at risk), If you investigate the counter-evidence and choose to openly support (or acknowledge) the counter-evidence (e.g. recommend others to address the counter-evidence)?
Would you deliberately ignore or hide the counter-evidence to protect your career or reputation, since it is unethical or immoral to ignore or hide the counter-evidence for the geocentric paradox of your discipline?