Do you believe in Magic?

Sabai, I was not referring to Bybee.

Learn to read and then criticize.

Thank you

Indeed I was quoting the goobermeister.

Reading comprehension problems seem to run through many of Sabs posts.

Thanks Bryon.

03-17-12: Geoffkait
If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? Will we harken back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm?

I can say with supreme confidence that Al’s use of the phrase “finite bounds of plausibility” does not reflect an attitude that “harkens back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm.” You are strawmanning, again, Geoff, and now at preposterous levels. And targeting Al, who is widely regarded as the Exemplar of Audiogon contributors, is strategic suicide. You just multiplied your opponents by 10.

03-17-12: Tbg
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori.

03-17-12: Almarg
The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise."

I respectfully disagree with you, Tbg, that we all need to agree on where to locate the line between what is plausible and implausible. That is partly because, as Al points out, the line is subjective, debatable, and imprecise.

Having said that, the line is not ALTOGETHER subjective, debatable, and imprecise. In other words, there are quite reliable methods for assessing the *prima facie* plausibility of a theory or explanation. Here are some of the considerations…

1. Conformity to a recognized Model of Explanation. By this I mean essentially what I wrote in my post on 3/15:

Nearly all scientifically valid explanations are nomological, mechanistic, or teleological. That is to say, they explain events or entities in terms of underlying LAWS, MICROSTRUCTURE, or FUNCTIONS, respectively. Physics is the paradigmatic example of nomological explanation. Chemistry is the paradigmatic example of mechanistic explanation. Biology is the paradigmatic example of teleological explanation.

Explanations that are presented as scientific, but are neither nomological nor mechanistic nor teleological, are prima facie implausible. Even REVOLUTIONARY theories like General Relativity conform to a recognized Model of Explanation. Geoff’s explanations for Machina Dynamica products do not.

2. A CAUSAL relationship between the explanation and the phenomenon to be explained. Prima facie plausible explanations provide a causal relationship between the thing to be explained (the explanandum) and the thing that does the explaining (the explanans). Geoff’s explanations do not.

3. A large “Circle of Justification” between the theory and data. To some extent, there is always a circular relationship between theory and data, in that the theory provides reason to believe the data and the data provides reason to believe the theory. What distinguishes good explanations from bad ones is that good explanations have LARGE Circles of Justification. That is to say, they involve LOTS of data and LOTS of theory. As the data and the theory become sparser and sparser, and the Circle of Justification becomes smaller and smaller, the explanations that employ that data/theory become more and more questionable. The worst kind of explanation is one in which the ONLY reason to believe the data is provided by the theory, and the ONLY reason to believe the theory is provided by the data. In that case, the explanation is simply AD HOC. For an example of an ad hoc explanation, see any of Geoff's explanations.

4. Entailed predictions. Prima facie plausible explanations entail predictions. This is true even of REVOLUTIONARY explanations. For example, when Einstein created/discovered General Relativity, one of the predictions it entailed was Gravitational Lensing, i.e., the bending of light around supermassive objects like stars, so that you can see what’s behind them. That prediction was famously confirmed when Gravitational Lensing was discovered to be real, lending tremendous credibility to General Relativity. So far as I can tell, Geoff’s explanations entail no predictions whatsoever.

5. Parsimony. Everybody knows this one. Suffice to say, it doesn’t look like this.

6. Independent Corroboration. So far as I am aware, NONE of Geoff’s explanations have been independently corroborated. As discussed by Cbw and me in earlier posts, the standard of REPRODUCIBILITY is the one thing ALL scientifically valid explanations have in common.
____________________________

None of these considerations are definitive determinants of an explanation’s validity or truthfulness, but taken together, they provide a VERY reliable guide to assessing an explanation’s prima facie plausibility. And equally important, none of these considerations eliminates the possibility of REVOLUTIONARY explanations.

I suspect that most or all of the above considerations underlie Al’s assessments of prima facie plausibility. Perhaps “common sense” isn’t the right term. Maybe it’s more like “informed sense.” That is something even more valuable.

Bryon

Thanks, Bryon, for the perceptive and instructive analysis, and for the compliment.

Yes, "informed sense" is a better term than "common sense" for what I was trying to express. It comes down to having a good instinct for where to draw the line separating the plausible from the implausible. Experience, research, empirical assessment, and a good understanding of the underlying technological principles, if applied cautiously and with an open mind, are complementary to each other in improving that instinct.

With regard to the technological element, a good understanding of those principles can help to provide a quantitative perspective on effects that may seem plausible when described qualitatively, but which may or may not be significant quantitatively.

Also, that understanding can help to enable recognition and control of extraneous variables, which may otherwise lead to attribution of a perceived effect to something other than its true cause. It has been my feeling that in many cases of disagreement between those who claim to perceive effects that seemingly make no sense, and those who allege that the placebo effect is in play, what is really going on is a failure to recognize and control extraneous variables, and/or an over-generalization of the applicability of the results.

One word which has not yet been mentioned in this thread is "discipline." Perhaps that's what it all comes down to.

Thanks again. Best,

-- Al