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. >
