From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:51:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.180401.27616@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
|> >What if the supposedly incomplete world view leads the skeptic to
|> >punch holes in an otherwise watertight case? Now this may not happen
|> >in the majority of cases, but such prejudiced acceptance of an incomplete
|> >world view, could lead to such an instance. Accepting the validity of my
|> >previous statements, can anybody give me a reason why this could never
|> >happen?
|> 
|> There's a difference between not knowing everything, and not knowing anything.
|> If someone claims that they can change lead into gold, and I know no physics,
|> I might say "it's impossible."  In fact, it's not impossible; it just requires
|> a nuclear reaction.
|> 
|> But why did I say it's impossible to turn lead into gold in the first place,
|> if I knew nothing about it?  I said it was "impossible" because, for the most
|> part, everyone who's tried it in the past has failed.  And when this person
|> tries it now in front of me, lo and behold their gold-making machine won't
|> work.
|> 
|> It's true that nuclear physics allows it, and that if I don't know nuclear
|> physics I might think it's impossible when it's not.  But I don't need to know
|> any nuclear physics to be able to look at the evidence and say "that machine
|> isn't working".
|> --
|> "the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
|> the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
|> disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler
|> 
|> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
|>      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

This is a great example. It has caused within me, much thought. I cannot
honestly say that I would believe the fellow based solely on his word
alone. Yes, I too would be skeptical. However, if 30 others attested to
this wonderful achievement, if they could show me gold which was claimed 
to be manufactured by this process, then I would be more receptive to
the idea. Nothing works like a thorough test under scientifically 
controlled conditions. (as long as the scientific conditions are not
detrimental to the devices operation) If it does not work in the 
laboritory, but is still claimed to work by the thirty others. If they
can still produce yet more gold. Where do we go? I'd probably go to
their village and acquire some of that gold. If the phantom disappears
as soon as I get there, well it's all part of lifes rich tapestry.

If not gold goes in and gold comes out, do you really want to know
the state of Schroedinger's goose before it lays the golden egg?

In quantum mechanics the observer perturbs the system of interest.
Measurements necessarily must be included as part of the quantum 
system. There is no passive observer. 

I guess the question is "where do we set the threshold of credibility?"

Mark.
(Sorry the crystals have all sold out.)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic