[extropy-chat] Origin of The Sourcebook Project [Part 1 of 2]

[Hal Finney]

I have one of Corliss's books, "Unusual Natural Phenomena", and I enjoy
leafing through it from time to time.  He uses an enticing structure
where he starts with surprising but ultimately understandable effects,
and gradually moves into utterly implausible ones.  All are taken from
real reports, and no doubt many of the more extreme ones are simply wrong,
but where do we draw the line?

We on this list seem to be vulnerable to beliefs which are not likely
to be true.  Many of us have our pet theories.  Damien writes about psi;
others believe that global warming is a conspiracy; we had long debates
in previous years about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS; some here give credit
to cold fusion; and I must admit that I have long been fascinated by
UFO reports.

I believe, based on reading Corliss's book and many years of conspiracy
theory arguments on the net, that in almost any of these areas, and no
doubt many others, if you look hard enough you can find seemingly credible
evidence that the conventional wisdom is wrong.  But the lesson I draw
is not the simple one, that these unconventional beliefs are right.
Rather, I suspect that the methodology we tend to use in these matters
is badly biased and misleading.

The world is a complicated place, and it's not easy to extract universal
truths.  I think many of us have a mistaken impression about how easy
and certain the course is from observation to theory.  The truth is that
the world does not provide information openly.  It is buried in noise,
much more noise than we naively expect.  Even false beliefs can appear
in a manner which superficially presents a convincing case.

Scientists, I think, see this first-hand.  It is a myth that they run
their experiments and let the data fall where they may.  Scientists
tinkering with their equipment and measurements and wrestle with
their data, forcing them into the patterns which they believe are
the true explanation.  Others oppose them and try to force their own
interpretations.  Ultimately out of this battle a consensus emerges,
as people judge which side is bending the facts more blatantly.

Scientists know how easy it is to arrange observations to make a
superficial case.  They are the world's experts at this.  And they know
how little such a presentation actually means as a guide to truth.

The lesson for the layman is the rule that I promoted a few months ago:
believe the scientific consensus.  Science is a social process, not
something that can be evaluated by reading one side's biased presentation
of evidence.  The reason science is successful is precisely because
the process of scientific consensus is not swayed by such presentations.
Just like professional magicians aren't fooled by magic tricks, scientists
are not fooled by evidence.  They know that the world presents itself
wrapped in falsehoods.  It takes more than experiment and reasoning to
reach the truth.  The social process of scientific consensus is so far the
best method that we have.

Rejecting scientific consensus on the basis of personal investigation
of the facts and evidence is likely to fail, paradoxical as it may seem.
That's just how the world works.

Hal