> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:46 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Scientific methodology > > > On 11/05/2006, at 5:31 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > The "ask Jimmy" prediction of the weather is a different > > mechanism. No > > model is available. If it exists, it's inside Jimmy's head....and > > he's > > claiming that he "just knows." We know that he's right, but we are > > no more > > able to predict what Jimmy will say tomorrow than we are able to > > predict > > tomorrow's forecast, given knowledge of the weather up to two > > months ago and > > knowing the last two months of Jimmy's predictions. > > However, it is still testable. You can show to a high level of > confidence that Asking Jimmy works. And once you know that, you know > that there's SOME mechanism by which it occurs.
I would agree that, by far, the likely outcome is that a mechanism would be found. But, I thinking of a hypothetical case where there was a magical connection between the weather two months from now and Jimmy. There is no mechanism, it's as if Jimmy has the ability to read the Weather Service's observation page/radar plots from two months from now....but his ability to see the future is limited to only the weather in one city. This is an implementation of Nick's "non-scientific method of testing". I agree that it is testable....and thus science is not immunized against acknowledging non-scientific methods of understanding the universe. > Like the mobile phone thing. We've kicked around and argued a few > mechanisms by which a mobile phone *might* cause cancer, or by which > the behaviour of people who are high-users of mobiles might lead them > to other behaviours which are cancer-promoters. But really, unless > there are some studies that show a clear correlation between mobiles > and brain tumours, we don't even know if there's really a link or > not. So we can have some fun chats on possible causes (I disagree > with the good brain doctor that physics is irrelevant here!) I think Zimmy was saying that, since the physics indicates that the power from mobile phones is not sufficient to affect the brain, he has a heightened skepticism concerning the report of damage found. >but really it's only for fun (unless anyone here really *believes* > "phones cause cancer"?). I'm pretty sure "The Fool" does believe this. I'd argue that the reference to other studies, the lack of a mechanism, etc., the critique of methodology are all part of the technique of science to evaluate the results presented by individual experimenters. We are using the normal mechanisms of science on the list to evaluate a claim of "proof by one groups results" by the Fool. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
