http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/22/5535022/stanford-opening-new-lab-to-study-bad-science
Stanford opening new lab to study bad science An epidemiologist famously wrote in 2005 "Why most published research findings are false,"<http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > [image: Monkeys] > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:39 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: > >> [image: Monkeys] >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Kevin-- >>> >>> This is what is called the 100th monkey principle. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks >>> >>> This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" >>> on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. >>> ***Yup. Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion. >>> The crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations >>> (fueled by the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as >>> a cue to further scientism. Even though it was "scientists" who fought so >>> hard against the science of LENR. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers" >>>> properly. This is because the true "true believers" have captured the >>>> phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists. >>>> >>>> This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in >>>> religious and political circles. >>>> >>>> To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" >>>> is more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or, >>>> worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief" >>>> in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood: >>>> >>>> http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml >>>> >>>> On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of >>>> what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to >>>> "decision networks". Decision networks are how rational actors go about >>>> deciding what experiments to invest in. Note I said "invest in" rather >>>> than the more general "perform". Investment must take into account the >>>> value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of >>>> the experiment. This is why decision theory is taught in places like >>>> Harvard business school: Business is largely about obtaining information >>>> and obtaining information has associated costs. If you can't treat those >>>> costs rationally you go out of business in short order. >>>> >>>> Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science >>>> targeting knowledge of potentially profound value. >>>> >>>> In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior >>>> Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience >>>> prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability >>>> of various outcomes based on various decisions. This "Prior" (as it is >>>> often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all >>>> "knowledge" is tentative. The key word here is "tentative". What does >>>> "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"? It means all of your >>>> theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further >>>> experience. The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in >>>> whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior >>>> Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all >>>> knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief. Such commitment to >>>> belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true >>>> believer". If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new >>>> experience, then they are not "true believers". >>>> >>>> So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation >>>> of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists >>>> who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory? >>>> >>>> Simple: >>>> >>>> The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ >>>> Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" >>>> and/or "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" >>>> by the true believers. This is tantamount to portraying the scientific >>>> method as a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to >>>> experimental evidence. Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly >>>> committed to fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
