Ok, I decided I’ll reply to all comments on my comments that I consider to be good.
Can you summarize the difference?
The example was Ignaz Semmelweis. He had actual empirical data, he was a medical doctor, the hypothesis could have been easily tested by, you know, washing your hands.
What’s about him that makes him an example of someone pattern matching to a crackpot? Just the opposition to his theory, and his reaction to the opposition, understandable for any moral person of his beliefs.
edit: Note that I did not look particularly close. If I look particularly close, that’s when he would make no sense—cadaverous particles? Unknown cadaverous material? Dead matter makes people dead? Or had he gotten it right—little living things? How is that even possible? . Looking from too far, you only see that his view is not accepted. Looking very closely, you see that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. But looking at the intermediate level, you see that he has data, and the theory is testable rather than a collection of excuses. You also see that the guy is for sure not merely doing this to make himself a living.
Ok, I decided I’ll reply to all comments on my comments that I consider to be good.
The example was Ignaz Semmelweis. He had actual empirical data, he was a medical doctor, the hypothesis could have been easily tested by, you know, washing your hands.
What’s about him that makes him an example of someone pattern matching to a crackpot? Just the opposition to his theory, and his reaction to the opposition, understandable for any moral person of his beliefs.
edit: Note that I did not look particularly close. If I look particularly close, that’s when he would make no sense—cadaverous particles? Unknown cadaverous material? Dead matter makes people dead? Or had he gotten it right—little living things? How is that even possible? . Looking from too far, you only see that his view is not accepted. Looking very closely, you see that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. But looking at the intermediate level, you see that he has data, and the theory is testable rather than a collection of excuses. You also see that the guy is for sure not merely doing this to make himself a living.