[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. >>> >> >> >
