Final answer:
When their theory is disproved, facilitators might feel excluded or pressured and face contradictions between communities' beliefs. Theories must be evidenced-based, and unsubstantiated claims, like those refusing religious experiences or conspiracy theories about NASA, exemplify conflicts between beliefs and scientific evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a theory is disproved, the response of the facilitators or proponents of that theory can be multifaceted. After being disproved, some facilitators may feel excluded or face pressure from their colleagues who disagree with them. However, in the face of evidence not supporting their theory, it is essential for proponents to reconsider their stance. Scientific theories must be substantiated by evidence, and when contradicting evidence emerges, theories are often abandoned or revised.
In cases where facilitators claim the truthfulness of a theory that is deprecated by evidence, it may indicate certain philosophical or psychological stances, as seen in the rejection of supernatural phenomena by Freud and Durkheim on the grounds that experiences cannot be empirically verified. Such stances are influenced by the community's acceptance of what is considered true and can lead to contradictions. For example, within the community of pragmatists, the claims might be true, but for others who do not share the same criteria, they would not be true, leading to a series of contradictions.
Moreover, theories such as those involving act at a distance can be difficult to accept without strong supporting evidence. Ideologies or beliefs, such as those related to religious experiences or conspiracy theories like cover-ups of intelligent life on Mars by NASA, often persist despite the lack of empirical evidence. This phenomenon underscores the complexity of human belief systems and their sometimes contentious relationship with scientific evidence.