The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

Professor Ryan asks whether there are observations that falsify both the magician and etch-a-sketch hypotheses of how computer monitors work. My answer is no. I can, for example, disassemble the monitor and observe its internal structure. This will be sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that there is no etch-a-sketch apparatus in there. But it will not demonstrate conclusively that no magic is involved. I may see nothing but electronic components, and understand how they work eliminate the possibility that magic is involved in some way. Of course, the magic hypothesis is superfluous and utterly without positive support, but that doesn't make it inconsistent with the observations. It is thus falsified in the sense that we are rationally entitled, and even required, to reject it, but not because it is inconsistent with the observations. I am calling that "weak falsification."

"If you have a feeling that the magician hypothesis still could be true while the etch-a-sketch hypothesis is down for the count, why? Both are down for the count. You'd bet your life savings on the falsehood of either."

Now that I've explained why, let me add that I don't disagree that both are down for the count. Saying that a hypothesis is weakly falsified doesn't mean that it is still in play. And it doesn't mean that you wouldn't bet the farm on it.

: -- Todd Moody, assoc. prof. of philosophy (posted 2/13, 9:30 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.

APE-MEN
Our biological beastliness spawned our cultural greatness. But can our biological greatness save us from our cultural beastliness, asks David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington. (Password required; how to get one.)
(Illustration by Courtney Granner)