Emission theory only seems crazy because you know all the evidence against it. As a hypothesis for the amount of data that someone had 2000 years ago, it wasn’t obviously wrong. Moreover, we know now that in fact some other sensory systems work very similarly to the emission theory of eyesight (e.g. bats using echolocation).
Emission theory only seems crazy because you know all the evidence against it.
I think that applies to most beliefs that are called crazy, inferential distance works the other way too. Then again, some people simply fail to update no matter how much evidence they have.
Moreover, we know now that in fact some other sensory systems work very similarly to the emission theory of eyesight (e.g. bats using echolocation).
That’s a good point, and I hadn’t made this connection before, although I’ve done some reading on bats.
Emission theory only seems crazy because you know all the evidence against it. As a hypothesis for the amount of data that someone had 2000 years ago, it wasn’t obviously wrong. Moreover, we know now that in fact some other sensory systems work very similarly to the emission theory of eyesight (e.g. bats using echolocation).
I think that applies to most beliefs that are called crazy, inferential distance works the other way too. Then again, some people simply fail to update no matter how much evidence they have.
That’s a good point, and I hadn’t made this connection before, although I’ve done some reading on bats.