Re: "Horganism"???? Perfect!!

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, William Beaty wrote:

> Ah, there's where we differ.   Evidence must speak louder than theory.
> One major effect of "Horganism" is that it makes us confident that current
> theory is complete...

I can't imagine a practicing scientist--even Horgan--thinking that current
theory is complete.  Difficult to progress beyond, perhaps; complete,
not a chance.

> ... That's the problem.  That "some time" is very long in many cases.

As it certainly ought to be in cases where the conflict with well-verified
theory is high and the experimental evidence is weak and/or not easily
reproducible.

> I suspect that it is infinite in many cases (that valid ideas are
> suppressed entirely, because they contradict current theories.)

Now *here* the very significant difference between us is again starkly on
view.  I believe that if a physical effect exists, is reproducibly
observable, and genuinely contradicts accepted theory, the scientific
community *will* take notice.  I simply cannot imagine any force that
could possibly prevent this from happening.  You can.  So be it.

I will grant you this much: I can barely imagine someone coming up with a
new *theory* that is better (meaning, of course, that it makes specific
quantitative predictions about experimental results that are always as
good and at least sometimes better) than current theory but which a) is
more complicated than current theory and b) differs only in its
predictions about phenomena that are not accessible to experiment. In such
a case I would argue that we *should* reject the new theory since it is
more complicated and gains us *absolutely nothing.* However, the reason I
say that I can "barely imagine" such a case is that it seems unlikely that
condition b would remain true forever.

> How many ideas are *almost* suppressed?  I look at history and see many
> examples.

I still wish that I could make sense of the phrase "almost suppressed."  I
can understand "suppressed for awhile" or "currently suppressed."

> If CF is real, then new ideas are actively resisted far more than anyone
> can possibly accept.  Or, if CF is bogus, then I am wrong, and science
> filters out the wrong ideas just as it's supposed to.

No and no. The question of whether or not science inordinately resists new
ideas will certainly not be settled by determining whether or not CF is
real.

> Unless a crackpot invents an antigravity drive, or unless Pons and
> Fleichman are vindicated, all this remains a matter of interpretation and
> opinion.  But then, ever it was thus.  When Goddard tries to get funding
> for building spaceships, all doors are closed, but when Goddard is
> vindicated, we all pretend that Science never makes mistakes in closing
> doors on good ideas.

You can't have it this way.  You'd like it to be that Goddard *was*
suppressed AND we all *deny* it.  The simple facts are, however, exactly
the reverse:  He *wasn't* suppressed and we all *know* that there were
some who tried; we even revel in the story!

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm