On 4/6/2014 7:32 PM, chris peck wrote:
>> So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs
boson exists?
It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they
agree.
>> How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it? Was it a
scientist?
Assuming you are asking how do I know the germ theory is a superior theory. My point is
that whether it is superior or not can not be decided by appeals to consensus. Maybe its
sin. Maybe its not.
But that isn't how you decided it, is it?
>> That's not really true.
It often is true.
>> Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists
not a consensus then. You appear to agree then, are you just being argumentative? Or are
you really persuaded by consensus?
There's a difference between being persuaded and considering evidence. If most scientists
in a field agree on something, I count that as evidence in favor of their position.
>> - but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better theory; they
just haven't heard it yet. Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics,
Schodinger's equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. Resistance to a
new and better theory arises when there is a lot of investment in old theories.
The speed with which people came to accept relativity is irrelevant. There was a
consensus against relativity initially because it was not derived from experiment.
Relativity was eventually convincing because it was confirmed by experiment, not because
lots of physicists accepted it.
Of course that's a chicken-and-egg problem. Physicists accepted it because it agreed with
experiment.
Perhaps you accept relativity because you've been told about a consensus. I accept it
because I've read about the experimental confirmations.
In which case you must have read that Michelson and Morley showed that the speed of light
was independent of the state of motion in 1897 - long before Lorenz, Fitzgerald, and Einstein.
>> Indeed, and they have. Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased
insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied and answered.
And did they answer those objections by appealing to a consensus? Did they go 'Its not
cosmic rays because 76% of scientists believe otherwise'?
No, of course not. But I didn't repeat their calculations and measurements and neither
did the deniers.
>>You apparently didn't read about Alfred Russell's experience with John
Hampden.
No I didn't.
Too bad.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
