I'll have to go with Draco here. Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that some guy is born with an almost x-men-like mutation that allows him to subsist through photosynthesis. Despite not having skin full of chlorophyll. And that he is somehow able to store a lot of water internally to power this photosynthesis. Anyway, forget the exact details of the explanation, but let's just say that it works. Now, this guy discovers this. He has never been exposed to a lot of secularism or skepticism, but there has been an awful lot of religion in his life. Therefore he concludes that his ability to survive without food has been granted by a goddess. Thus, Photosynthon (that's his X-men name) may have the completely wrong idea about how his powers work (he thinks it's a goddess - it's actually photosynthesis), but since his powers are not powered by faith, this doesn't matter at all. Whether he believes that his powers come from a goddess, from photosynthesis or from the magical space peanut doesn't actually affect his photosynthetic powers.
Forgive me for not being able to attribute a source to this quote, but "reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away." And it works the other way too: Reality is that which requires no belief in it to exist.
And just so people don't derail the thread: No, I don't think Photosynthon is for real. I'm sure he's a hoax. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether or not he believes that <strike>the magical space peanut</strike> a goddess is the source of his alleged powers or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1770777:date=May 11 2010, 06:15 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 11 2010, 06:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except they've never published and are refusing independent scrutiny.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They'll publish their findings in a few months - you're thinking of previous studies - but, yeah, refusing independent investigation is rubbish, although they won't be able to avoid it during peer review and replication anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1770779:date=May 11 2010, 06:28 PM:name=[WHO]Them)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([WHO]Them @ May 11 2010, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except the difference here is that we've all actually seen lightning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoosh. His explanations for the phenomena have nothing to do with whether or not its real. Plus, you're not exactly taking his word for it.
Forgive me for not being able to attribute a source to this quote, but "reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away." And it works the other way too: Reality is that which requires no belief in it to exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Brilliant.
As a matter of fact, a whole lot if not all of our knowledge came from the process of untangling various mysteries attributed to gods or magic, to show that they have a perfectly sensible explanation. The real question here is whether or not its true, not whether it's ridiculous, nor what the man says about it.
Actually I have a - grievously misused - quote on it, hold on...
<!--QuoteBegin-Charles "Finch Daddy" Darwin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles "Finch Daddy" Darwin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false ... [but opinion of majority has no meaning in science] ... reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case ... then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of [my work].<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1770745:date=May 11 2010, 04:53 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 11 2010, 04:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770745"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a pretty rubbish way to use the razor. By that token we'd have to reject every single new finding in science.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uuuh, not really
new findings in science are routinely peer reviewed extensively before being submitted to reputable journals who then publish them
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Actually, a basic rule of thumb in science is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and any scientist who cares about their reputation would do due diligence on anything resembling the paranormal before submitting to a peer-reviewed journal.
Anyone who cares about the lack of rigour in the modern media should read 'The Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan. It is a very good general tour of how fallacious reasoning and poor basic principles of science in today's world leave us with a very large portion of our population believing in medieval superstitions and more still are suckered by bad journalism for not having the basic tools of reasoning.
<!--quoteo(post=1770787:date=May 11 2010, 07:11 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770787"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, a basic rule of thumb in science is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no its not. This is patently unscientific, as it expresses nothing other than going by subjective judgment. It's a good rule of thumb, but it has nothing to do with science.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2010
That's why it's a rule of thumb and not a law or axiom.
And it doesn't require subjective judgement to categorise a claim as extraordinary by classifying the claim by how many existing theories or laws it requires you to dispense with to accept it. ( e.g. your recent topic on free energy as a case-in-point )
A better description of it would be a heuristic for assessing the worth of a claim. If someone claims something bizarre to be true with no evidence, ignore it, if they claim something bizarre to be true with lots of evidence, pay attention.
<!--quoteo(post=1770790:date=May 11 2010, 07:34 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why it's a rule of thumb and not a law or axiom.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well there you go.
<!--quoteo(post=1770790:date=May 11 2010, 07:34 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And it doesn't require subjective judgement to categorise a claim as extraordinary by classifying the claim by how many existing theories or laws it requires you to dispense with to accept it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...That's exactly what subjective judgment is. That's what the word "extraordinary" means twice in that rule, how a person judges it to be, whereas science requires objective measurement. Plus, in this case it's also contaminated by very direct mental inertia, which is also purely subjective and, actually, logically circular: a theory has no merit if it's indeed disproven.
The problem with the rule itself is that it can be used to engage in goalpost shifting, literally retarding all future knowledge, the very heart of science.
<!--quoteo(post=1770790:date=May 11 2010, 07:34 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A better description of it would be a heuristic for assessing the worth of a claim. If someone claims something bizarre to be true with no evidence, ignore it, if they claim something bizarre to be true with lots of evidence, pay attention.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
I have no idea how we manage to agree and disagree at the same time. My point is that science is designed to be inherently as objective as possible, so it has no bearing what people's opinion is on the subject. The only authority in science is evidence, and it doesn't matter how likely or unlikely the claim is judged by scientists themselves, all that matters is whether there is evidence for it or not.
To this end, this guy's claim is no different from claims of that of any new drug, as they both require the same degree of evidence to back them up: objectively inerrant beyond any statistical concern. (I would say "beyond reasonable doubt", but that'd be rather ironic.)
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
Just stopping in one last time to unsubscribe to this thread. Draco_2K, it would help if you actually read what I was saying before you object to it (twice)
<!--quoteo(post=1770800:date=May 11 2010, 08:27 PM:name=[WHO]Them)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([WHO]Them @ May 11 2010, 08:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770800"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just stopping in one last time to unsubscribe to this thread. Draco_2K, it would help if you actually read what I was saying before you object to it (twice)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not helpful.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
I'm gonnah go with "pics or it didn't happen"... Apply it to your science/super natural any way you like it...
I'll leave you with this:
The body needs salt, and in particular potassium for the heart to beat!
For the sake of offtopicness: lolfighter, this guy really needs a better super hero name then Photosynthon, sounds to much like Photon (Genis-Vell ) or Proto Man, sure he's a Robot Master, the first at that. But does have super human abilities, and if Batman is a super hero so is he... Wait he's a villain... GAH!
<!--quoteo(post=1770803:date=May 11 2010, 08:44 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ May 11 2010, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm gonnah go with "pics or it didn't happen"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ditto.
Internet in general should be commended for inventing that phrase.
<!--quoteo(post=1770803:date=May 11 2010, 08:44 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ May 11 2010, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The body needs salt, and in particular potassium for the heart to beat!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. Our body also needs sweat to get rid of various toxic build-up (leads to tumors and fainting in hours if blocked), getting rid of stomach acid for obvious reasons, upkeep of sympathetic/parasympathetic cycle, iron to process oxygen, citric acid for pretty much everything, calcium for heartbeat and cell formation, passing urine for basic liver and kidney function, food bacteria for upkeep immune system, various vitamins, minerals and enzymes to even stay alive otherwise and many, many, many other things... It's just not built to go on on its own in the slightest.
Water and hydrocarbon nutrition are the very least of problems I see with all this, they're just poised to show up quicker than others. Absolutely everything I know about human anatomy - and in part physics and chemistry - protests to this.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1770797:date=May 11 2010, 05:55 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 11 2010, 05:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well there you go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to echo Who[Them].
In my first post I state clearly it is a rule of thumb.
You contradict me saying it is only a rule of thumb.
I clarify that I originally said it was a rule of thumb.
Then you agree with my second point ignoring that this was my original point.
Read. Comprehend. Reply.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is that science is designed to be inherently as objective as possible, so it has no bearing what people's opinion is on the subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So every single claim must be given equal attention? That's plain idiotic.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To this end, this guy's claim is no different from claims of that of any new drug, as they both require the same degree of evidence to back them up: objectively inerrant beyond any statistical concern. (I would say "beyond reasonable doubt", but that'd be rather ironic.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And my claim about mushroom bunnies stealing all our fridge magnets to another dimension to make a gigantic magnet to flip the earth's magnetic field in 2012. What of that claim? Should we say: Well, this claim must be treated equally to a new drug because until we fail to gain evidence for it we have to treat them equally for the good of all future science.
Baloney. Poppycock. Idiocy of the highest order. No offence.
<!--quoteo(post=1770807:date=May 11 2010, 09:11 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Read. Comprehend. Reply.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your original comment said it's a rule of thumb in science, which sounded as if it's some sort of rule science goes by. It does not. That's an entirely subjective notion.
<!--quoteo(post=1770807:date=May 11 2010, 09:11 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So every single claim must be given equal attention?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science does not decide what claims to examine, it decides how to examine them. All claims undergo the same <i>rigour</i>.
<!--quoteo(post=1770807:date=May 11 2010, 09:11 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Baloney. Poppycock. Idiocy of the highest order. No offence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No comment.
<!--quoteo(post=1770811:date=May 11 2010, 09:19 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ May 11 2010, 09:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's the Daily Fail....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm having second thoughts on citing it in the OP.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2010
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Science does not decide what claims to examine, it decides how to examine them. All claims undergo the same rigour.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science doesn't decide anything. Science is a system of thinking for interrogating reality to produce useful conclusions. People decide things. You talk about it like there's a rule book that people must abide by. There is no such thing. There is peer review. And within this peer review are a set of heuristics used to evaluate all aspects of thought and reason. There is experimentation and logic to produce conclusions in science. There are heuristics and techniques for evaluating hypotheses. This is called the scientific method and there is no rule-book that every scientist must abide by, there is just peer review of results.
For example, Occam's Razor is a similar heuristic. The original variation of the 'extraordinary claims' heuristic was by Laplace "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
So to say that a crazy man's claim, one amongst many many similar claims, that gets a mention in the daily mail and circulates through some less than credible publications requires equal credence as claims that have supporting evidence of a high calibre, is basically silly.
<!--quoteo(post=1770818:date=May 11 2010, 09:41 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770818"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Science doesn't decide anything. Science is a system of thinking for interrogating reality to produce useful conclusions. People decide things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Once again, we agree. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Except, of course, there <i>is</i> a "rule book" in science: the scientific method itself. (And possibly logic).<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1770818:date=May 11 2010, 09:41 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770818"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So to say that a crazy man's claim, one amongst many many similar claims, that gets a mention in the daily mail and circulates through some less than credible publications requires equal credence as claims that have supporting evidence of a high calibre, is basically silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying that it is unscientific to demand more or less investigation or rigour based on your beliefs.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1770813:date=May 11 2010, 06:22 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 11 2010, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770813"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Science does not decide what claims to examine, it decides how to examine them. All claims undergo the same <i>rigour</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're getting caught up in the elegance of formal, objective scientific truth. That is to say, that it doesn't apply to the more subjective, mutable standards of scientific enquiry. There is no constant law that defines best practices in science. We use double-blind trials because we have found them to produce the least biased results. We say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because we have found this, on balance, to be true.
It's entirely valid to consider truth-claims with unequal weighting. Some are patently absurd whilst others, like this, are rehashings of claims debunked elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with looking upon this as another fraud, as long as you're open to results that show it is not. I can't say I expect that these results will.
<!--quoteo(post=1770824:date=May 11 2010, 10:00 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 11 2010, 10:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're getting caught up in the elegance of formal, objective scientific truth. That is to say, that it doesn't apply to the more subjective, mutable standards of scientific enquiry. There is no constant law that defines best practices in science. We use double-blind trials because we have found them to produce the least biased results. We say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because we have found this, on balance, to be true.
It's entirely valid to consider truth-claims with unequal weighting. Some are patently absurd whilst others, like this, are rehashings of claims debunked elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with looking upon this as another fraud, as long as you're open to results that show it is not. I can't say I expect that these results will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with the general notions, but I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
"Extraordinary claims" is incomparable to blind-trial tests: it has never been tested, and it cannot possibly be, as it's a ambiguous and subjective notion, and suggests subjective and arbitrary judgment. Subjective judgment lies outside of scientific process: it can take part in a scientist's ideas as to what to investigate, but never investigation itself.
There is absolutely everything wrong with expecting science to comply with personal belief.
<!--quoteo(post=1770803:date=May 11 2010, 07:44 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ May 11 2010, 07:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the sake of offtopicness: lolfighter, this guy really needs a better super hero name then Photosynthon, sounds to much like Photon (Genis-Vell ) or Proto Man, sure he's a Robot Master, the first at that. But does have super human abilities, and if Batman is a super hero so is he... Wait he's a villain... GAH!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. I chose his name for deliberate lameness. Unless you can come up with one that is either equally fitting but lamer or better fitting and equally lame, it stays.
<!--quoteo(post=1770827:date=May 11 2010, 10:13 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ May 11 2010, 10:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770827"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Until they release the findings there is nowhere for this thread to go but down a horrible hole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That'd be based on the fallacy that forums exist to perpetuate factual and reasonable discourse.
<!--quoteo(post=1770828:date=May 11 2010, 10:16 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 11 2010, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No. I chose his name for deliberate lameness. Unless you can come up with one that is either equally fitting but lamer or better fitting and equally lame, it stays.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Chlorophile?..
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Again, you seem to have a preconceived notion of what science is and is not, Draco. You seem to want it to be a well defined ideology and adhere to formalism that does not actually exist, as the peer review process and investigation of evidence is inherently a human process with the trials, failures and dead ends that follows. Wanting to throw away the heuristics as puzl outlined is terribly naïve: People cheat, people lie, people are lazy, and people have other motivations than increasing the total human collective knowledge.
There are always more claims than people applying rigor to these claims. It is a limitation that in the ideal regime of infinite time and resources would not pose a problem, but our world and the lives of people in this world is not in this ideal regime. The current scientific method accounts for this as it is in essence a practical method for aquiring knowledge; your notion what science is does not.
<!--quoteo(post=1770838:date=May 11 2010, 10:54 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 11 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, you seem to have a preconceived notion of what science is and is not, Draco.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh... That would mean I know what science is. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->More specifically, science is naturalistic methodology.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1770838:date=May 11 2010, 10:54 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 11 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wanting to throw away the heuristics as puzl outlined is terribly naïve: People cheat, people lie, people are lazy, and people have other motivations than increasing the total human collective knowledge.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't throw away that which never was there to begin with. "Extraordinary proof" is not a scientific notion, it's nothing more than a quip.
Science is scientific methodology, and personal belief is not part of it. Trying to inject personal judgment into scientific method strikes at the very core of the practice, which is to be as objective as possible. Judging things by what you believe them to be is indeed the exact opposite of science.
A more intuitive demonstration would be reversing the fallacy - as every fallacy can be - to say, for example, since a lot of people unquestionably believe magic to be true, that it is not an extraordinary notion, and requires little proof; to say that global warming is an unbelievably extraordinary claim and will need to be proven to the extent of constructing an atom-accurate model of the Earth before it has any credence; the assumption that Earth is round rather than flat circle that it seems to be would also probably go here somewhere.
So... Whether to pay any attention to a guy who says he can survive without food is at personal discretion of the scientists. But his examination itself has no reason to be different than any other, nor to be judged by any other standard. If he's a cheat like every other claim before it, science is the best way to find out. Prejudice is not.
---
I really do not want people to muddy the waters of truth in an effort to protect it. This effort had already done us a lot of damage over the ages.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
You erroneously disqualify "extraordinary proof" as a scientific term. It is a term that is set by the scientific community or parts of it, very much based on heruristics or held notions.
Personal belief is very much a part of the scientific method, and it is often this that fuels debates and enthusiasm in scientific circles. What you need to be aware of is that scientific method is not a rigorous approach of a single man (or woman) but a collaboration between peers where the common consensus decides what is to be assumed to be the current body of knowledge. While every person involved in science has to try to be as impartial and objective as possible, it is not a requirement for the process to work and in net aquire an accumulation of knowledge.
The difference here is that while you don't accept the "filtering" and labeling of claims through heuristics as a part of the scientific method based on your ideological standing, it is a vital part of the mechanism that makes it work as an accumulator of knowledge.
Now, if you want to discuss the aquiring and nature of Truth in mathematical and logical terms, I am more than willing to jump to the ideal regime. But as long as you talk about the scientific <b>method</b> you are inherently refering to a practice based on an ideology, not an ideology itself.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1770839:date=May 11 2010, 08:13 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 11 2010, 08:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Trying to inject personal judgment into scientific method strikes at the very core of the practice, which is to be as objective as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personal judgement is the bedrock of the peer review process. Objectivity is approached when that judgement reaches a consensus. If there was no personal judgement in science, the conclusion section of papers would not be there, or at least be significantly shorter.
I think you're trying to protect something that doesn't really exist, and whilst very high-minded, ignores the realities of day-to-day life.
Comments
Forgive me for not being able to attribute a source to this quote, but "reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away." And it works the other way too: Reality is that which requires no belief in it to exist.
And just so people don't derail the thread: No, I don't think Photosynthon is for real. I'm sure he's a hoax. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether or not he believes that <strike>the magical space peanut</strike> a goddess is the source of his alleged powers or not.
They'll publish their findings in a few months - you're thinking of previous studies - but, yeah, refusing independent investigation is rubbish, although they won't be able to avoid it during peer review and replication anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1770779:date=May 11 2010, 06:28 PM:name=[WHO]Them)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([WHO]Them @ May 11 2010, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except the difference here is that we've all actually seen lightning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoosh. His explanations for the phenomena have nothing to do with whether or not its real. Plus, you're not exactly taking his word for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1770781:date=May 11 2010, 06:55 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 11 2010, 06:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770781"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...
Forgive me for not being able to attribute a source to this quote, but "reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away." And it works the other way too: Reality is that which requires no belief in it to exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brilliant.
As a matter of fact, a whole lot if not all of our knowledge came from the process of untangling various mysteries attributed to gods or magic, to show that they have a perfectly sensible explanation. The real question here is whether or not its true, not whether it's ridiculous, nor what the man says about it.
Actually I have a - grievously misused - quote on it, hold on...
<!--QuoteBegin-Charles "Finch Daddy" Darwin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles "Finch Daddy" Darwin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false ... [but opinion of majority has no meaning in science] ... reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case ... then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of [my work].<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uuuh, not really
new findings in science are routinely peer reviewed extensively before being submitted to reputable journals who then publish them
Anyone who cares about the lack of rigour in the modern media should read 'The Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan. It is a very good general tour of how fallacious reasoning and poor basic principles of science in today's world leave us with a very large portion of our population believing in medieval superstitions and more still are suckered by bad journalism for not having the basic tools of reasoning.
No, no its not. This is patently unscientific, as it expresses nothing other than going by subjective judgment. It's a good rule of thumb, but it has nothing to do with science.
And it doesn't require subjective judgement to categorise a claim as extraordinary by classifying the claim by how many existing theories or laws it requires you to dispense with to accept it. ( e.g. your recent topic on free energy as a case-in-point )
A better description of it would be a heuristic for assessing the worth of a claim. If someone claims something bizarre to be true with no evidence, ignore it, if they claim something bizarre to be true with lots of evidence, pay attention.
Well there you go.
<!--quoteo(post=1770790:date=May 11 2010, 07:34 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And it doesn't require subjective judgement to categorise a claim as extraordinary by classifying the claim by how many existing theories or laws it requires you to dispense with to accept it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...That's exactly what subjective judgment is. That's what the word "extraordinary" means twice in that rule, how a person judges it to be, whereas science requires objective measurement. Plus, in this case it's also contaminated by very direct mental inertia, which is also purely subjective and, actually, logically circular: a theory has no merit if it's indeed disproven.
The problem with the rule itself is that it can be used to engage in goalpost shifting, literally retarding all future knowledge, the very heart of science.
<!--quoteo(post=1770790:date=May 11 2010, 07:34 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A better description of it would be a heuristic for assessing the worth of a claim. If someone claims something bizarre to be true with no evidence, ignore it, if they claim something bizarre to be true with lots of evidence, pay attention.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
I have no idea how we manage to agree and disagree at the same time. My point is that science is designed to be inherently as objective as possible, so it has no bearing what people's opinion is on the subject. The only authority in science is evidence, and it doesn't matter how likely or unlikely the claim is judged by scientists themselves, all that matters is whether there is evidence for it or not.
To this end, this guy's claim is no different from claims of that of any new drug, as they both require the same degree of evidence to back them up: objectively inerrant beyond any statistical concern. (I would say "beyond reasonable doubt", but that'd be rather ironic.)
That's not helpful.
I'll leave you with this:
The body needs salt, and in particular potassium for the heart to beat!
For the sake of offtopicness:
lolfighter, this guy really needs a better super hero name then Photosynthon, sounds to much like Photon (Genis-Vell ) or Proto Man, sure he's a Robot Master, the first at that. But does have super human abilities, and if Batman is a super hero so is he... Wait he's a villain... GAH!
Ditto.
Internet in general should be commended for inventing that phrase.
<!--quoteo(post=1770803:date=May 11 2010, 08:44 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ May 11 2010, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The body needs salt, and in particular potassium for the heart to beat!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Our body also needs sweat to get rid of various toxic build-up (leads to tumors and fainting in hours if blocked), getting rid of stomach acid for obvious reasons, upkeep of sympathetic/parasympathetic cycle, iron to process oxygen, citric acid for pretty much everything, calcium for heartbeat and cell formation, passing urine for basic liver and kidney function, food bacteria for upkeep immune system, various vitamins, minerals and enzymes to even stay alive otherwise and many, many, many other things... It's just not built to go on on its own in the slightest.
Water and hydrocarbon nutrition are the very least of problems I see with all this, they're just poised to show up quicker than others. Absolutely everything I know about human anatomy - and in part physics and chemistry - protests to this.
Just to echo Who[Them].
In my first post I state clearly it is a rule of thumb.
You contradict me saying it is only a rule of thumb.
I clarify that I originally said it was a rule of thumb.
Then you agree with my second point ignoring that this was my original point.
Read. Comprehend. Reply.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is that science is designed to be inherently as objective as possible, so it has no bearing what people's opinion is on the subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So every single claim must be given equal attention? That's plain idiotic.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To this end, this guy's claim is no different from claims of that of any new drug, as they both require the same degree of evidence to back them up: objectively inerrant beyond any statistical concern. (I would say "beyond reasonable doubt", but that'd be rather ironic.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And my claim about mushroom bunnies stealing all our fridge magnets to another dimension to make a gigantic magnet to flip the earth's magnetic field in 2012. What of that claim? Should we say: Well, this claim must be treated equally to a new drug because until we fail to gain evidence for it we have to treat them equally for the good of all future science.
Baloney. Poppycock. Idiocy of the highest order. No offence.
EDIT:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5eBT6OSr1TI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5eBT6OSr1TI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Your original comment said it's a rule of thumb in science, which sounded as if it's some sort of rule science goes by. It does not. That's an entirely subjective notion.
<!--quoteo(post=1770807:date=May 11 2010, 09:11 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So every single claim must be given equal attention?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science does not decide what claims to examine, it decides how to examine them. All claims undergo the same <i>rigour</i>.
<!--quoteo(post=1770807:date=May 11 2010, 09:11 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Baloney. Poppycock. Idiocy of the highest order. No offence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No comment.
<!--quoteo(post=1770811:date=May 11 2010, 09:19 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ May 11 2010, 09:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's the Daily Fail....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm having second thoughts on citing it in the OP.
Science doesn't decide anything. Science is a system of thinking for interrogating reality to produce useful conclusions. People decide things. You talk about it like there's a rule book that people must abide by. There is no such thing. There is peer review. And within this peer review are a set of heuristics used to evaluate all aspects of thought and reason.
There is experimentation and logic to produce conclusions in science. There are heuristics and techniques for evaluating hypotheses. This is called the scientific method and there is no rule-book that every scientist must abide by, there is just peer review of results.
For example, Occam's Razor is a similar heuristic. The original variation of the 'extraordinary claims' heuristic was by Laplace "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
So to say that a crazy man's claim, one amongst many many similar claims, that gets a mention in the daily mail and circulates through some less than credible publications requires equal credence as claims that have supporting evidence of a high calibre, is basically silly.
Once again, we agree. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Except, of course, there <i>is</i> a "rule book" in science: the scientific method itself. (And possibly logic).<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1770818:date=May 11 2010, 09:41 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 11 2010, 09:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770818"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So to say that a crazy man's claim, one amongst many many similar claims, that gets a mention in the daily mail and circulates through some less than credible publications requires equal credence as claims that have supporting evidence of a high calibre, is basically silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying that it is unscientific to demand more or less investigation or rigour based on your beliefs.
Beliefs have nothing to do with science.
So... Practical, sure. Scientific, no.
I think you're getting caught up in the elegance of formal, objective scientific truth. That is to say, that it doesn't apply to the more subjective, mutable standards of scientific enquiry. There is no constant law that defines best practices in science. We use double-blind trials because we have found them to produce the least biased results. We say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because we have found this, on balance, to be true.
It's entirely valid to consider truth-claims with unequal weighting. Some are patently absurd whilst others, like this, are rehashings of claims debunked elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with looking upon this as another fraud, as long as you're open to results that show it is not. I can't say I expect that these results will.
It's entirely valid to consider truth-claims with unequal weighting. Some are patently absurd whilst others, like this, are rehashings of claims debunked elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with looking upon this as another fraud, as long as you're open to results that show it is not. I can't say I expect that these results will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with the general notions, but I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
"Extraordinary claims" is incomparable to blind-trial tests: it has never been tested, and it cannot possibly be, as it's a ambiguous and subjective notion, and suggests subjective and arbitrary judgment. Subjective judgment lies outside of scientific process: it can take part in a scientist's ideas as to what to investigate, but never investigation itself.
There is absolutely everything wrong with expecting science to comply with personal belief.
lolfighter, this guy really needs a better super hero name then Photosynthon, sounds to much like Photon (Genis-Vell ) or Proto Man, sure he's a Robot Master, the first at that. But does have super human abilities, and if Batman is a super hero so is he... Wait he's a villain... GAH!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I chose his name for deliberate lameness. Unless you can come up with one that is either equally fitting but lamer or better fitting and equally lame, it stays.
That'd be based on the fallacy that forums exist to perpetuate factual and reasonable discourse.
<!--quoteo(post=1770828:date=May 11 2010, 10:16 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 11 2010, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No. I chose his name for deliberate lameness. Unless you can come up with one that is either equally fitting but lamer or better fitting and equally lame, it stays.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chlorophile?..
There are always more claims than people applying rigor to these claims. It is a limitation that in the ideal regime of infinite time and resources would not pose a problem, but our world and the lives of people in this world is not in this ideal regime. The current scientific method accounts for this as it is in essence a practical method for aquiring knowledge; your notion what science is does not.
Uh... That would mean I know what science is. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->More specifically, science is naturalistic methodology.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1770838:date=May 11 2010, 10:54 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 11 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wanting to throw away the heuristics as puzl outlined is terribly naïve: People cheat, people lie, people are lazy, and people have other motivations than increasing the total human collective knowledge.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't throw away that which never was there to begin with. "Extraordinary proof" is not a scientific notion, it's nothing more than a quip.
Science is scientific methodology, and personal belief is not part of it. Trying to inject personal judgment into scientific method strikes at the very core of the practice, which is to be as objective as possible. Judging things by what you believe them to be is indeed the exact opposite of science.
A more intuitive demonstration would be reversing the fallacy - as every fallacy can be - to say, for example, since a lot of people unquestionably believe magic to be true, that it is not an extraordinary notion, and requires little proof; to say that global warming is an unbelievably extraordinary claim and will need to be proven to the extent of constructing an atom-accurate model of the Earth before it has any credence; the assumption that Earth is round rather than flat circle that it seems to be would also probably go here somewhere.
So... Whether to pay any attention to a guy who says he can survive without food is at personal discretion of the scientists. But his examination itself has no reason to be different than any other, nor to be judged by any other standard. If he's a cheat like every other claim before it, science is the best way to find out. Prejudice is not.
---
I really do not want people to muddy the waters of truth in an effort to protect it. This effort had already done us a lot of damage over the ages.
Personal belief is very much a part of the scientific method, and it is often this that fuels debates and enthusiasm in scientific circles. What you need to be aware of is that scientific method is not a rigorous approach of a single man (or woman) but a collaboration between peers where the common consensus decides what is to be assumed to be the current body of knowledge. While every person involved in science has to try to be as impartial and objective as possible, it is not a requirement for the process to work and in net aquire an accumulation of knowledge.
The difference here is that while you don't accept the "filtering" and labeling of claims through heuristics as a part of the scientific method based on your ideological standing, it is a vital part of the mechanism that makes it work as an accumulator of knowledge.
Now, if you want to discuss the aquiring and nature of Truth in mathematical and logical terms, I am more than willing to jump to the ideal regime. But as long as you talk about the scientific <b>method</b> you are inherently refering to a practice based on an ideology, not an ideology itself.
Personal judgement is the bedrock of the peer review process. Objectivity is approached when that judgement reaches a consensus. If there was no personal judgement in science, the conclusion section of papers would not be there, or at least be significantly shorter.
I think you're trying to protect something that doesn't really exist, and whilst very high-minded, ignores the realities of day-to-day life.