It seems scientists should be alerted to the human propensity for confirmatory bias!
Confirmatory Bias in Science
"This refers to the tendency for humans to seek out, attend to, and sometimes embellish experiences that support or ‘confirm’ their beliefs. Confirmatory experiences are selectively welcomed and granted easy credibility. Disconfirmatory experiences, on the other hand, are often ignored, discredited, or treated with obvious defensiveness... the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves…
One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for “confirmatory” experiments. Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers. Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did. The costs of this cognitive bias are perhaps nowhere as serious as in the area of scientific publication.” — Michael J. Mahoney, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 161-175.
But despite scientists’ beliefs, there is an alternative to the gravity-only assumption of consensus cosmogony. Unfortunately astrophysicists are not trained in plasma discharge phenomena so that they might recognize this fact. As in many other scientific disciplines, the inertia of tradition, institutionalization and specialization to the brink of irrelevance has produced terminal tunnel vision. Astrophysics is hamstrung by an unreal but mathematically tractable view of plasma behavior in space. That view suits the dominant mathematical theorists but denies real physics. The specialty is called ‘magnetohydrodynamics.’ The name betrays the fundamentally incorrect approach. Magnetohydrodynamics treats space plasma as a mysteriously magnetized gas. So we hear of stellar “winds” and gaseous “shock fronts.” The solar wind “buffets” against the Earth’s magnetic field.
The ‘father’ of the subject, Hannes Alfvén, notoriously dismissed his own invention in his Nobel Lecture of December 11, 1970. He warned of the consequences:
“these [magnetohydrodynamic] theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected…
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.
I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back.”
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5&pf=YES
Confirmatory Bias in Science
"This refers to the tendency for humans to seek out, attend to, and sometimes embellish experiences that support or ‘confirm’ their beliefs. Confirmatory experiences are selectively welcomed and granted easy credibility. Disconfirmatory experiences, on the other hand, are often ignored, discredited, or treated with obvious defensiveness... the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves…
One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for “confirmatory” experiments. Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers. Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did. The costs of this cognitive bias are perhaps nowhere as serious as in the area of scientific publication.” — Michael J. Mahoney, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 161-175.
But despite scientists’ beliefs, there is an alternative to the gravity-only assumption of consensus cosmogony. Unfortunately astrophysicists are not trained in plasma discharge phenomena so that they might recognize this fact. As in many other scientific disciplines, the inertia of tradition, institutionalization and specialization to the brink of irrelevance has produced terminal tunnel vision. Astrophysics is hamstrung by an unreal but mathematically tractable view of plasma behavior in space. That view suits the dominant mathematical theorists but denies real physics. The specialty is called ‘magnetohydrodynamics.’ The name betrays the fundamentally incorrect approach. Magnetohydrodynamics treats space plasma as a mysteriously magnetized gas. So we hear of stellar “winds” and gaseous “shock fronts.” The solar wind “buffets” against the Earth’s magnetic field.
The ‘father’ of the subject, Hannes Alfvén, notoriously dismissed his own invention in his Nobel Lecture of December 11, 1970. He warned of the consequences:
“these [magnetohydrodynamic] theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected…
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.
I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back.”
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5&pf=YES
Just different states of being... kinda like gas, water and solid. Only ones purely "particle" and the other is purely "wave."
