Now, another example of a test of truth, so to speak, that works in the sciences that would probably work in other fields to some extent is that if something is true, really so, if you continue observations and improve the effectiveness of the observations, the effects stand out more obviously. Not less obviously. That is, if there is something really there, and you can’t see good because the glass is foggy, and you polish the glass and look clearer, then it’s more obvious that it’s there, not less.
—Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist, transcribed from a lecture
Richard Feynman on testing for truth
July 11, 2010 by Oedipus
4 Responses
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Posts
- An Eschatological Laundry List
- True believers and the problem of attachment
- Richard Feynman on testing for truth
- Fascination is the alternative to faith
- Robert M. Price reads my question, hilarity ensues
- The significance of Oedipus
- The unlikely object of investigation
- Pointing to credulity / science and religion
- The Tao is good but not moral
- Bertrand Russell and the warden
- Sliding away from reality / The raccoon attack which foiled mankind’s discovery of cold fusion
- Skepticism is a prerequisite
- The curious case of the You’re Not Helping blog
- About the title
Archives
- March 2011 (1)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (7)
Meta
-
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
The Buddha Is Not Serious 
That’s a very good point. It’s particularly relevant to those tests of the paranormal that show up tiny apparent effects which are only visible statistically over vast numbers of trials.
If the effect is really so tiny, it’s implausible that anyone could have noticed it without statistical testing. But of course the people who normally claim to notice these effects haven’t conducted any statistical testing, which means they didn’t really notice them. They just thought they did. And it means the effect they claim to have noticed is far greater than the effect that later shows up in statistical testing.
It also bodes poorly for the perennial favorite “God of the Gaps” — if Feynman is correct, God should be coming out of his shell, rather than scuttling behind the cabinets, when we shine the light on Him.
Wow. That’s a Feynman quote I haven’t heard before, and a good one too. It’s something I’ll have to bring up in future discussions the next time someone brings up the usual excuses as to why the evidence of the paranormal gets worse the more closely it’s examined, or cites studies with superficially high effect sizes and significance that have been discredited after better controlled studies showed a reduction in both. Gotta love that reductionist scientistic materialism™.
An excellent, common-sense way of getting the point across. I like it.