Bob: Not even close.
The story as told by Watson and Keyes is popular among New Age<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age>authors and personal growth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_growth> gurus and has become an urban legend <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend> and part of New Age mythology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology>. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Kevin-- > > This is what is called the 100th monkey principle. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *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 <jabow...@gmail.com> 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. >> > >
