3. Talebin also tells of a study where a picture of a fire-hydrant  is blurred beyond all recognition.  Groups of people were asked to identify the subject of the picture.  The picture was gradually made clearer until the participants could identify the fire-hydrant.  If one increased the resolution in 10% increments, the subjects could identify the fire hydrant with less resolution than if the subjects sat through increasing resolution in 1% increments.   In theory, the mind makes up what the picture is and looks to confirm it.  With the 1% increases, the mind usually gets it wrong and has to spend time undoing the mistake. Is it a condom or a fire-hydrant?

So it takes more clarity before the truth of the picture can be known.  I think about this example as I remember all of the detailed history forms requested of me by doctors and researchers.  As I fill these out time after time, am I giving the 10% increases in resolution or the 1% increases.

I think about this experiment with regards to our testing of new drugs.  We look for flares happening with a short period of time to determine whether the drug works.  For me, this feels like looking at the 1% increases in resolution comparing 5% resolution to 6% and defining success as still seeing the condom clad penis.

Beginning of Post:  http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-part-1/

Thought 2: http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-part-2/

Thought 3: http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-part-3/

Conclusion: http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-conclusion/