| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
And this...Scientific explanations are rarely discovered by a process of elimination. Most times, the number of rational proposals by which we might account for a given phenomenon are practically infinite. Scientists are hardly going to test each one in an effort to find the one they can't falsify.
No academic should proceed in this manner.
Instead, we start with the most probable solution. If the wife is dead, the husband probably did it. Rule him out before you prosecute the Butler.
That sounds reasonable doesn't it?
But what if you've already convicted the Butler? What if he already confessed to the crime?
Here's the twist: Applied Epistemology insists that the husband still probably did it. This is probability in an Epistemological sense. Immutable probability. It doesn't change in the light of new facts. It stands eternally as a critique of reality as you see it, in so far as your reality fails to conform.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | And this...Scientific explanations are rarely discovered by a process of elimination. |
Scientific explanations, unlike crimes, are rarely discovered solely by a process of elimination. However it's difficult to imagine a process without the use of elimination as a practical tool, and it is one of the basic blocks of solving crime..
| Ishmael wrote: | | Most times, the number of rational proposals by which we might account for a given phenomenon are practically infinite. |
That is why you need elimination
| Ishmael wrote: | | Scientists are hardly going to test each one in an effort to find the one they can't falsify. |
They don't.
| Ishmael wrote: | Instead, we start with the most probable solution. If the wife is dead, the husband probably did it. Rule him out before you prosecute the Butler.
That sounds reasonable doesn't it? |
A practical demonstration of elimination based on probability.
| Ishmael wrote: | But what if you've already convicted the Butler? What if he already confessed to the crime?
Here's the twist: Applied Epistemology insists that the husband still probably did it. This is probability in an Epistemological sense. Immutable probability. It doesn't change in the light of new facts. It stands eternally as a critique of reality as you see it, in so far as your reality fails to conform. |
OR....You need a new idea, like DNA to get a solution, then you progress by elimination......then you have your man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This is all related to the Wimbledon Champion problem. Question: who is the best grass court tennis player in the world? Answer: The Wimbledon champion. Wrong: It is the Number One Seed at Wimbledon. Or, as it is defined in the usual pithy AE law: Never judge by results. Except sometimes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Roger Stone wrote: | | We do have an interesting point which arises from the more alarmist allegations.... |
I only just noticed that Roger Stone has contributed to the Applied Epistemology library! We are honoured, sir.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Err, are you sure that's that Roger Stone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote:
Most times, the number of rational proposals by which we might account for a given phenomenon are practically infinite.
That is why you need elimination |
You wholly miss Ishmael's (and AE's) point, Wiley. The fact that they are practically infinite means that an elimination strategy is next to impossible. Though in practice eliminating anything is next to impossible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is the Roger Stone either though admittedly I have never heard of either. Perhaps Herr Steinevitz will reveal himself if he is still amongst us. We are a diminishing but therefore increasingly and pleasingly rarefied assemblage. Talking of new members and people I've never heard of, I wasn't very impressed with this Nasseem Talib chappie that Borry has been raving about, judging by his YouTubes. However he can join as a probationer if he is really keen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Talking of new members and people I've never heard of, I wasn't very impressed with this Nasseem Talib chappie that Borry has been raving about, judging by his YouTubes. However he can join as a probationer if he is really keen. |
Given the number of non-AEL people he has upset, and the number of books he has sold, I will tell him he can take that as a compliment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Genius is in inverse proportion to the number of books sold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Glad you said that.
That makes me more of a genius than you.
Nice to get your confirmation. :-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | Err, are you sure that's that Roger Stone? |
I presume not. I just thought it rather funny to see that name. I didn't recognize it when the post was originally made. Don't believe our "Roger Stone" posted before or since.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Apart from the other twenty-two posts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I got this paper from academia.edu this morning that bears on the general problem.
In other words, a doctor rather than an academic (I am assuming).
| Goldwater in his abstract wrote: | The epidemiological features of SIDS reflect an infection-related aetiology. The main pathological findings (heavy fluid-laden lungs, intrathoracic petechial hemorrhages, heavy brain, thymus and liver) are observed in the majority of cases. The reason for this paper is to emphasize an extraordinary aspect of mainstream research: that it tends to ignore (or misinterpret) the epidemiology and the anatomical pathology of SIDS and through these omissions or misinterpretations has entered into the domain of dogma by following lines of research that follow unproven ideas such as the Triple Risk Hypothesis.
Such research does not consider the above mentioned features of SIDS which still stand as the best guide to the underlying cause or causes of this tragic enigma. This article explores the underlying reasons for the anomalous directions mainstream researchers have taken and seeks a logical approach to the problem. |
I think what he is saying is that prosecuting carers when their charges die of SIDS -- or whatever the police decide was the cause -- is probably unwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
The cause of SIDS is vaccination. And that is why it remains an official "mystery."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You are implying they know but are carrying on regardless. When you consider the lives saved by infant vaccination compared to the lives lost by SIDS, this would surely be a sensible policy, wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
