Re: Scientists "reaching" when it comes to "Deep Impact"

Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2005 14:55:20 -0700, "AstroHoney" <lindarvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

>>If observation can "disprove" a theory then what is observation when it
>>supports a theory?

> It is an observation that supports a theory.

Maybe. It is at least an observation consistent with a theory; sometimes
the range of possibilities is well constrained that it is consistent
with only one of the extant ideas, which is as usually what we mean
by "supports". There is a nice declassified guide for CIA analysts
which discusses the pitfalls of "consistent" data; our brains are
really good at supporting our preconceptions, to the extent of
overplaying the importance of non-conflicting data whose interepetation
is non-unique data. Ahh, took a couple of tries to get Google to
weed out the recent specific debate, but here it is:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html
(and the notes with it mention that this material has to be retaught to
each new generation of analysts).

Bill Keel
.