Belief in the Truth of a Theory (Again)
Posted by jennifer, May 9th, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Philosophy
I wrote these two laws down on a scrap of paper years ago. I still have the scrap of paper but not the original reference.
Harris’s First Law:
Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.
Harris’s Second Law:
The creativity of a scientist is directly proportional to how much he knows, and inversely proportional to how much he believes.
—————-
first posted August 04, 2005
Belief in the Truth of a Theory
Posted by jennifer, at 11:11 AM
In similar vein and news for some:-
“But to attempt to assess the future calls for extrapolation, which, as the designer of the De Havilland Comet said after he found out why Comets were coming apart in the air, is the fertile mother of error”
and “If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws”.
“Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.”
What a silly statement. Relativity mustn’t be that precise then. Neither must quantum theory.
“Falsifiability” is also a pre-requesite for viability of a theory.
And since climate alarmists seem to think that ANY trend in global temperatures (such as the cooling trend we are now entering) can be explained by Global Warming, it seems the theory of Global Warming has just become “unfalsifiable” and therefore non-scientific.
I think that a little bit of “Carl Sagan” would go a long ways about now:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/carl-sagan-bunkometer-and-agw.html
Langmuire’s pathological science is another case in point:
Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect cognitive bias). Some characteristics of pathological science are:
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
There are claims of great accuracy.
Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
[...] Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science. At least that is what someone called Harris once said. [...]
[...] Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science. At least that is what someone called Harris once said. [...]
[...] Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science. At least that is what someone called Harris once said. [...]