Ball Lightning and "experimenter regress"

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: William Beaty <billb@xxxxxxxxxx>


> Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> In my opinion the biggest mystery of Ball Lightning is how many people claim
> to have seen it and how many people believe it exists.

This is unclear.  Are you imagining that BL doesn't exist?

When cutting-edge science is involved, there is a strange problem
involving circular reasoning.  The problem occurs because a new scientific
theory is created in order to explain observations ...yet any observations
which conflict with existing theories are usually viewed with suspicion
and rejected.

If odd evidence is rejected because it goes against theory, how then can
we discover if theories are wrong and need changing?  On the other hand,
if we accept odd evidence and use it to update scientific theories, how
can we detect any errors in the evidence, and keep from changing the
theories when there is no need?

We could call this "the gorilla problem."

When people reported seeing large black apes in Africa, they were
ridiculed.  This was back in 1700, when Africa had been pretty much
explored, yet no "gorillas" had been found, and the experts knew that
reports of these so-called "gorillas" came only from hoaxers or crazy
people.  But then some years passed and a few gorillas were captured, and
the status of gorillas suddenly changed.  Suddenly the experts stopped
ignoring the eyewitness accounts, and new reports of sightings were used
to strengthen the theory that "gorillas exist."

First:

   1. Earlier theory:  there is no solid evidence for gorillas, therefore
      gorillas are delusions and fantasy, they don't exist

   2. Rejected evidence: eyewitness sightings of gorillas, verbal accounts
      of gorillas shot by hunters, etc.   Since gorillas don't exist, we
      reject any evidence that says otherwise.

   3. End result:  theory is used to reject genuine (but weak) evidence.


Next:

   1. Powerful evidence appears: living gorillas are exhibited in zoos

   2. Rejected theory: "gorillas are delusions and fantasy."
      Since we can go see a gorilla in the zoo, we know that anyone who
      disbelieves in gorillas is wrong, and now there is no reason to
      ridicule eyewitness accounts of gorilla sightings.

   3. End result: strong evidence is used to reject earlier theory.


A similar problem occurs whenever an experimenter makes a measurement, but
the expected value of the measurement is not known.  If you read the
voltmeter, yet have no "theory" that predicts an expected voltage, then
you can't be certain whether the meter is broken, or whether some other
mistake was made.  But then your goal is to create a new theory to explain
your voltage readings.  But then you need a theory before you can be
confident that your voltage readings are correct.  But how can you be
confident in any theory based on the questionable voltage readings you
took?  But you can only create new theories based on evidence such as
voltage readings!  An endless circle.

This problem is called "The Experimenters Regress."

  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22experimenter+regress%22

Science isn't as simple as most people believe, no?



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci