The Case of Disney’s America

Do you believe that UFOs are spacecraft from another solar system? A believer may collect sightings and testimonials while a skeptic focuses on natural explanations and hoaxes. Either can settle on a favored answer and look mainly for support. Jones calls this the “get-off-at-the-first-stop” approach to satisficing. The difficulty is that the same evidence may fit several explanations. My cat’s wet fur could mean she came in from the rain, fell into a sink, or was sprayed by the children. To distinguish those possibilities, I need evidence that could count against each one.

Jones describes a criminal investigation in which police arrested a young man for rape because he lived nearby, the victim identified him, and he had no alibi. They stopped investigating. Months later, a look-alike neighbor confessed. The police had “satisfied” on the first plausible suspect. Continuing to test the case against him might have exposed their mistake earlier.

Jones applies the same reasoning to the proposed “Disney’s America” theme park in Prince William County, Virginia. Disney announced it in late 1993 and canceled it ten months later after intense opposition. CEO Michael Eisner said, “I expected to be taken around on people’s shoulders.” Yet the surrounding estates and stables—the region held 15,000 horses—suggested an affluent population with strong attachments to the land. Planners focused on financial projections, jobs, and tourism while misunderstanding or downplaying the strength of opposition. They had “satisfied” on the prospect of approval.

The hypothesis testing exercise is to examine both “the plan will be approved” and “the plan will not be approved.” Alexander’s question asks, “What evidence would prove this false?” Applied early, that question could have drawn attention to local landowners and to the nearby Manassas Civil War battlefields, which gave the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) a reason to oppose the project.

Jones proposes that Disney might have involved historians and preservationists before choosing a site, giving them a role in shaping how history would be presented. That could have exposed objections earlier and perhaps changed the plan or its reception. It does not establish that the NTHP would have supported the park or that approval would have followed.

Before committing to a plan, ask, “What would show my favored hypothesis is wrong?” Then seek evidence that helps distinguish it from plausible alternatives. The purpose is to discover weaknesses while there is still time to respond.