I apologize in advance for this post. I have had my second drink tonight (I like double Manhattans; they were in vogue when I was young) and, when I went to make my second, I asked my wife if it was alright. She said, “sure, as long as you don't go off on one of your diatribes about saving the world from their ignorance”. So I can't talk to her; I'll talk to Rade.
The human brain is the most sophisticated analog analyzer available. Feed it sufficient data and it will discover any correlations which can be attributed to that data. It is not necessary to understand its mode of functioning in order to recognize or use its abilities. For thousands upon thousands of years (even before humans existed) it has been adjusting to and forming models of reality. The model is called “common sense”: “common” because it is available to all and “sense” because we the, people of the world, sense that it is valid (our experience tells us that the predictions of common sense are correct).
It must be recognized that common sense yields the correct answers almost by definition as, if incorrect answers are generated, the resultant errors will shift the model. Those who scoff at the power of common sense should examine th progress of their field. Common sense yields incorrect answers only when its power is applied outside the range of data which established it. If sufficient data is absorbed within this new region, common sense will soon adjust and begin to yield surprisingly accurate results.
Analytical mechanisms of explanation are of great value because their justification can be totally and completely understood. Errors are easily analyzed in order to discover their possible source. The analysis allows concentration of data gathering efforts into productive areas. However, pushed outside the data which established these mechanisms, the mechanisms are no more to be trusted than the unknown mechanisms of common sense.
The central issue of the above is to clarify the relationship between analytical models and an actual usable model of reality. So long as the region of application is to an area common to human experience, the analytical model must be held as subservient to common sense. If any prediction of our model is not in agreement with common sense, we must consider the conflict carefully. A disagreement can only arise via two very specific routes: either our model is not applicable or we are outside the the range of data upon which common sense is based. As scientists, we would like to believe that the second situation is always the case.
It is interesting to note that the successful models in history (those achieving major acceptance) yield result consistent with the current attitudes of common sense. The common attitude is that this is due to the willingness of the public to accept the supporting evidence. Could it be instead that common sense has already solved the problem?
Another point to ponder is the probability that the next movement counter to current concepts is the one which yields the common sense predictions currently held? (Or perhaps the common sense of those who have actually thought about the circumstance; have at least lived the required thought experiments: I discount all those who have no expeience with the issues under discussion. Sorry Rade, I guess I just knocked you out again
). Perhaps our best bet is to examine carefully the “unexpected” results of current theory.
But I am drunk ...
Have fun -- Dick
Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
