Talk:Experimenter's regress

What's with all the EPOR?--66.65.125.206 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy raises skepticism about the experimenter's regress being a genuine problem in science, by rejecting Collins' alleged best-case example of it. Lippard (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But (heh!) are there unsuspected major errors in your interpretation? I see at least one: you're assuming that SEP rejects Collins' example, when instead it appears that they're demonstrating how the Regress normally is "broken." I suspect that you and the SEP authors also believe that Weber's claimed detection was completely wrong in an absolute sense. In reality such things never happen, since such mistakes are probablistic and can never be brought to values of exactly zero or one. If accumulated evidence suggests, with extremely high probability, that Weber made the mistake, and the other replications weren't themselves erroneous ...we may *discontinously* leap to a decision that Weber was wrong. That decision-leap itself may be incorrect (but with low probability, a probability which still may change at any time in the future when new evidence comes forth.) Example: many researchers would bet big bucks that "Polywater" was just an embarrassing mistake. Yet here at the UW in the last two years new evidence appeared which is currently reversing that viewpoint: the recent discovery of apparent growth of dipole chains, liquid crystalline order, in water at the scale of millimeters, see Dr. G. Pollack's new peer-reviewed "Water Journal" for this research. 128.95.172.173 (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

There appear to be many unsupported assertions here. It's hard to tell, as nothing is cited to a specific reference, and anonymous editors adding unsupported stuff doesn't help.

I hope a knowledgeable editor will sort this out. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]