Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] unidirectional thrust

From: [email-masked] ("Hal Finney")
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:11:28 -0800 (PST)

A meta point on this thread.  It's interesting to engage in this kind
of discussion in the context of the results Robin has been writing about
regarding the nature of disagreement.  I have become self-conscious about
my reasoning processes.  I am always surprised now when I find myself
disagreeing with someone.  It rocks me back on my heels, mentally, when
someone says something I strongly disagree with.  What's going on here?
How could they believe that, in the face of all the evidence that brought
me to my contrary belief?  They must have some reason!  Is it possible
that there's an enormous body of evidence that I am unaware of which
lends support to their position?  Maybe I'm wrong about my belief!

But then I think, what about all the other people who believe as I do?
They have good reasons for their beliefs as well.  If I change to this
new position, I will be contradicting those others.  So it makes sense to
hold to my current views.  But then it turns again; surely the other guy,
who is advocating this crazy position, is also aware of the many people
who share my view.  Their evidence hasn't been enough to persuade him!
So again, I am back to the possibility that this guy really does know
something so convincing that it outweighs the enormous mass of expert
wisdom which informs my view.

So I do have to think seriously about it.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I don't
just think that lightly, or formally.  I really mean it.  Maybe I really
am wrong.  Maybe I don't understand electrostatic phenomena as well as I
think.  Maybe I don't understand the nature of mass and inertia.  Maybe I
don't understand conservation of energy.  But of course that's not enough.
I am confident that my positions are consistent with mainstream physics.
I believe that Mike would agree.  That means I have to consider that the
conventional understanding of these physical phenomena have major holes
in them, such that a simple arrangement of aluminum foil and a few tens
of kilovolts will violate Newton's third law.

In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities.  Which is more likely:
that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the
community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves?  And I have to
fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect
the conventional wisdom of science.  Yes, scientists make mistakes.
But so do non-scientists!  And science has mechanisms for self-correction
which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community.

What about the disagreement?  I cast my lot with science, but what
about the fact that Mike continues to advocate unconventional physics?
I still face the fact that we disagree.  Here is where Robin's results
have their bite.  If I believed that Mike was rational and honest and
that he accorded me and other skeptics the same courtesy, I could not
disagree with him.  But I do disagree.  And so I have to admit that
I don't believe these traits apply to Mike.  He has a creative and
energetic mind, but from my perspective, Mike is crazy.  He has all
these wild beliefs that seem to have little support, and his explanations
and justifications don't make sense to me.  Now, I don't meant this as
an insult.  Probably many successful people in science and in the world
would also be considered crazy in the same sense.  Some people can fight
the conventional wisdom and win, and the world is better off because of
those people.  It's good to have some crazy people around.  But in this
case, it explains why I am able to disagree without contradicting myself.

Hal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:58:29 +0000

>case, it explains why I am able to disagree without contradicting myself.
My position is somewhat simpler.
I have looked at the implications of such devices as the Woodward drive, 
and even done some expts in that direction.
If an expt is successful then either conservation of energy goes or the 
equivalence of inertial frames.
OTOH my experience over the years with such claims leads me to believe 
that it is extremely unlikely new physics is being uncovered.
Maybe I'm wrong. Time will tell.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005

---

From: Robin Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:19:18 -0500

>which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community.

I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists.
Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really.  "Established
academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better.
Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor.  If most people who
are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics reject a
position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong.

But then comes the hard part: how can you ever justify disagreeing with
most established experts on a topic?  Like cryonics for example.  Of course
established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've found one?

Robin Hanson  [email-masked]  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:57:16 +0000

> established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've 

IMO the only real justification is experiment.
Theories are ten a penny and every crank has one.
Naudin et al are probably wrong, but its worth taking a closer look 
simply because they are claiming experimental justification.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-