1 Feb 2005 20:21
Re: Confirmation Bias and Evidence vs Static
The psychology experiment noted in Luther's post (message 8881) is beautiful. It is simple and it makes the point obvious. This is the kind of beauty that a physicist seeks in a model of reality. To me, Mill's model doesn't have it (yet!); however, I admit that I'm prejudiced (albeit, not closed minded). On the other hand, he has done what Einstein did. He did not try to prove all of physics was correctly modeled by his theory (although he did enough cases to show serious dedication and to confirm a lot). He set out a test to find an answer that conventional thinking could not produce. Had Einstein, himself, obtained the data for the perihelion of Mercury, I suspect that the results would not have been believed. It takes the independent observer to be convincing. (I believe that some people today are still not convinced of the validity of the original data.) Mill's needs the independent observer. But who will it be? Certainly not his critics. On the other hand, few people with the credentials to be believed, even if they agreed with the theory and its importance, will turn off their funding supply and try to get support for a major effort an area that they have no history of credibility in. Don Hotson's reference (in message 8870) to Tiller's work points to an even tougher example. Here is a man with impeccable credentials and with a wild-ass theory. (There are some of us in the group with nearly as good credentials that also have such thoughts "outside the box.") However, Tiller has pursued his theory (e.g., http://tillerfoundation.com/PaysonTheoryIII.pdf) and made some discoveries that will be "threatening" to a lot of people. It appears(Continue reading)
RSS Feed