![\"chuck](\"https:\/\/www.dresan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/chuck-it-600x450.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Yeah, so that happened on my attempt to get some rest on my Sabbath day.<\/p>\n
I’m not going to cite the book – I’m going to do the author the courtesy of re-reading the relevant passages to make sure I’m not misconstruing them, but I’m not going to wait to blog my reaction – but what caused me to throw this book, an analysis of the flaws of the scientific method, was this bit:<\/p>\n
Imagine an experiment with two possible outcomes: the new theory (cough EINSTEIN) and the old one (cough NEWTON). Three instruments are set up. Two report numbers consistent with the new theory; the third one, missing parts, possibly configured improperly and producing noisy data, matches the old.<\/p>\n
Wow! News flash: any responsible working scientist would say these results favored the new theory. In fact, if they were really experienced, they might have even thrown out the third instrument entirely – I’ve learned, based on red herrings from bad readings, that it’s better not to look too closely at bad data.<\/p>\n
What did the author<\/em> say, however? Words to the effect: “The scientists ignored the results from the third instrument which disproved their theory and supported the original, and instead, pushing their agenda, wrote a paper claiming that the results of the experiment supported their idea.”<\/p>\n Pushing<\/em> an agenda<\/em>? Wait, let me get this straight, Chester Chucklewhaite: we should throw out two<\/em> results from well-functioning instruments<\/em> that support theory A in favor of one<\/em> result from an obviously messed-up instrument<\/em> that support theory B – oh, hell, you’re a relativity doubter, aren’t you?<\/p>\n Chuck-toss.<\/p>\n I’ll go back to this later, after I’ve read a few more sections of E. T. Jaynes’s Probability Theory: The Logic of Science<\/em> as an antidote.<\/p>\n -the Centaur<\/p>\n P. S. I am not saying relativity is right or wrong, friend. I’m saying the responsible interpretation of those<\/strong> experimental results as described<\/strong> would be precisely the interpretation those scientists put forward<\/em> – though, in all fairness to the author of this book, the scientist involved appears to have been a super jerk. Yeah, so that happened on my attempt to get some rest on my Sabbath day. I’m not going to cite the book – I’m going to do the author the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[258,257],"tags":[19,5],"class_list":["post-5174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy","category-science","tag-hard-science","tag-we-call-it-living","ratio-2-1","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5174"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5176,"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5174\/revisions\/5176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dresan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"