Re: [Phys-l] [BULK] Re: "The Truth Wears Off" by Jonah Lehrer in The New Yorker Dec 13, 2010.

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

I see nothe in your postings that are supported by facts.  It is easy to 
speculate that the world might be different than it is, espectially when 
the alternate world might be less threatening. It is known that the 
omotoa; response to bad news is disbelief, an example is the refusal of 
the belgian populace to support the building of bomb shelters prior to 
WWII.  Your fantasies are uhelpful to the process of ceciding how to deal 
with facts.
				Regards,
					Jack

"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:

> I wasn't referring to any specific result -- I was considering the general human nature.
>
>
> But here is an example -- consider the "hockey stick" temperature reconstructions.  There has been some discussion of the statistical details used to reconstruct past temperatures from the proxy data.
>
> * If Michael Mann is predisposed TOWARD AGW and he finds support that now it is hotter than any time in the past two millennia, he is likely to accept the result.  And the IPCC is like to to accept the results.
>
> * If Stephen McIntyre is predisposed AGAINST AGW, he is likely to say to himself "maybe Mann did the analysis wrong" and try a second time.  Now when his statistical analysis shows that the hockey stick disappears, he is likely to accept that result.
>
> Then it is likely that each side will continue looking for support for its own conclusions.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy for more discussion.
>
>
> Again, I am not saying either "side" is right or wrong. I am saying a researcher is likely to accept data that fits his paradigm, and likely to question data that refutes his paradigm (especially when there is continued funding at stake).  A false paradigm can be artificially reinforced due to psychology, rather than actual science.
>
>
> I'll even throw in a somewhat germane quote from a famous physicist:
> "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
> -- Max Planck, (Scientific Autobiography, 1949)
>
>
> Tim