Paradigms change. The process of flipping one is interesting and worth discussing. Belief bias can be considered an extension of confirmation bias but with an added layer. Not only do you filter out evidence you disagree with, but so do many others in the same sphere, making it much easier to ignore important evidence.

Scientific Consensus and Paradigm Shifts

Most scientific acceptance is based on the zeitgeist or consensus of expert opinions (who have thoroughly weighed the evidence themselves), which makes sense when you think about it. 

Often, those who don’t conform to the prevailing opinion are considered gadflies, shunned, or ignored, especially when the bulk of evidence supports the consensus. Think flat earth society, chemtrails, or young earth beliefs that posit the earth is 7,000 years old. The overwhelming evidence refuting these beliefs is not taken seriously, for good reason.

However, sometimes paradigms do change. At one time, plate tectonics was considered in a similar light. The resistance to this now-accepted theory was based on young earth thinking, with little evidence to refute it. Over time, evidence began to pile up, and at some point in the 60s, the paradigm flipped.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection was also met with initial derision. Some people today still reject it, mostly for religious reasons, even though the evidence is supported by geology, anthropology, genetics, archaeology, biology, physics, and other accepted scientific disciplines. Eventually, it is right to make the flip. The question is, how do we go about doing that?

Challenging Our Own Beliefs

Well, besides critical thinking, looking at evidence dispassionately, and considering the experts in their fields and the evidence they place confidence in, at some point, those experts may change their opinions as the evidence begins to accumulate. Now, what if we are the experts? That’s when we need to challenge our own belief bias. Are we sticking to our guns because we’ve always believed something? Can we challenge that belief with supporting evidence? Are we ignoring solid evidence simply because it contradicts the prevailing view?

This becomes difficult when everyone else still opposes the evidence’s interpretation. This can intrude into Groupthink, which will be discussed later—resisting agreement to avoid conflict. As experts, we need to exercise due diligence and be careful of belief bias.

Belief Bias in Foundation Repair

Not only have I seen this play out on individual projects, but I’ve also observed it on a larger scale. In fact, some issues are still being debated, with the potential for a paradigm shift in the industry.

I’ve seen “foundation repair experts” (i.e., foundation repair salespeople) claim that all foundation differential is solely a result of settlement and that high areas in the middle are only from the footings going down, causing the 4″ unreinforced floor slab to cantilever up over a 20-foot horizontal span. In their limited worldview, this makes perfect sense, and it flavors every “investigation” they conduct. Of course, in this case, the only paradigm shift that needs to occur is in the mind of the person making these claims—though, in reality, it’s likely to be just a few people who need to change their perspective.

Learning from Mistakes in Foundation Repair

I remember early in my foundation repair career, working in an area of expansive soils. As we lifted, the damage worsened instead of improving. So, like many contractors, we stopped, lowered it back down, and agreed to “stabilize only.” I believed I was doing the right thing, based on the limited evidence from my supplier/trainer (whom I considered experts). Later, more evidence helped me rethink how to understand and interpret soil foundation interactions in arid climates, leading to better repair plans. It was a painful flip.

When changing geographical locations, such as moving from wetter to arid climates, it’s easy to carry over unchallenged beliefs, leading to mistakes. Regional construction practices can differ significantly. In Northern Arizona, for example, it’s common to build a large retaining wall for foundations and fill it with cinder stones. Over time, these stones consolidate, causing floor settlement, while footing elevations remain unchanged. This is abnormal in other regions, where the slab typically settles when the deeper footing settles, creating a void for the slab. If you’re unaware of local practices, you could make a costly mistake when interpreting evidence. See illustration below.

Severity Scales and Foundation Performance

I wrote a blog over a year ago about the severity scales accepted in the industry (check this link). Originally, Thoeny and Marsh published the angular distortion theory, where rise over run improved the total vertical differential. A house might not seem out of level much with 1” of total vertical displacement, unless it spans only 6 feet! Angular distortion addresses this issue.

Later, it was realized that a simple tilt from one edge of the house to the other is less destructive than a deflection—a grade break if you will. Even though angular distortion may appear similar in some cases, a deflection causes far more severe damage. This was addressed by the Foundation Performance Association and later the Post Tensioning Institute with their tilt and deflection criteria. However, even from the beginning, serious issues remain with this system. Please see my discussion (click the link here) on the problems with it. Some are now proposing the radius of curvature to overcome these weaknesses.

This issue has become a major topic in professional associations. It seems people are deeply invested in defending the status quo, engaging in political maneuvering to control outcomes. Some of this stems from protecting clients who may not be happy with the outcomes of changes.

Challenging Beliefs for Growth

As professionals and experts, we must examine our ethics, motivations, and inherent beliefs. Often, our own beliefs can be what stands in the way of growth, and it’s up to us to embrace paradigm changes. Even on each project, we must carefully evaluate evidence, avoiding the temptation to ignore it simply because it conflicts with our personal views.