Old man spends 70 years without food or water, annoys scientists

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770842:date=May 11 2010, 11:41 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 11 2010, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Un-scientific. I'm sure it's mentioned by scientists themselves, but so are religious beliefs.

<!--quoteo(post=1770842:date=May 11 2010, 11:41 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 11 2010, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are mistaken here. What you have here is maybe 17th century science, which indeed relied on majority opinion, but today's science strives to be as objective as possible - and the history of 20th century reflects positively on that approach, I think - where no personal objection has any weight on work's credence, and only evidence holds any authority. The role of discussion and peer review is to outline methodological weaknesses, and nothing else.

Admission of mistakes is a positive requirement to acquisition of new knowledge, plain and simple.

<!--quoteo(post=1770843:date=May 11 2010, 11:47 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 11 2010, 11:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770843"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personal judgement is the bedrock of the peer review process.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are mistaken. Peers do not judge the work at all, their role is to comment on its methodology, and to consult the publisher.

<!--quoteo(post=1770843:date=May 11 2010, 11:47 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 11 2010, 11:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770843"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Objectivity is approached when that judgement reaches a consensus.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's an Argument from Majority. No such thing occurs. Peer review has no other role than outlining methodological weaknesses, discussion takes place outside scientific process itself. In the end everything has to rest on evidence and logic.

<!--quoteo(post=1770843:date=May 11 2010, 11:47 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 11 2010, 11:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770843"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I'm arguing against popular misconceptions about science; practical considerations not based on previous scientific studies lie outside of science's area of application, i.e. have nothing to do with it.

Science is not authoritarian. It is not democracy. It's about evidence.

Insane

If you don't think informed personal judgement plays a role in the scientific method, well... you're just wrong. When scientists comment on methodology what do they do but make personal judgements? I made a comment on the methodology of this trial earlier and you suggested I was bringing my personal beliefs into it. It seems like we're going round in circles here.

Do keep bashing that gavel and handing down pronouncements, though.

tankefugl

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, Draco. You are taking a very condenscending tone here.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(...)where no personal objection has any weight on work's credence<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That is indeed very naïve to believe it is so.

The 20th century's success has more to do with the volume of scientific work being done as well as the experimental tools developed to do so (communication such as the Internet springs to mind) rather than humanity transcending into objectivity and selflessness ...

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770846:date=May 12 2010, 12:11 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 12 2010, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't think informed personal judgement plays a role in the scientific method, well... you're just wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personal judgement in sense of thinking, sure does. Personal judgement in sense of passing judgement, no. I hope you can see the difference, I'm not sure how to explain semantics of this.

<!--quoteo(post=1770846:date=May 12 2010, 12:11 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 12 2010, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When scientists comment on methodology what do they do but make personal judgements? I made a comment on the methodology of this trial earlier and you suggested I was bringing my personal beliefs into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suggested that because it seemed like you were acting more on belief than on reason. Namely, I outlined things you were overlooking, which I figured to be obvious in this case.

<!--quoteo(post=1770846:date=May 12 2010, 12:11 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 12 2010, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do keep bashing that gavel and handing down pronouncements, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where do I report flaming?..

Draco_2k

Gah, double post.

<!--quoteo(post=1770848:date=May 12 2010, 12:19 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 12:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, Draco. You are taking a very condenscending tone here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disagreeing is not condescension. You told me I don't understand science, and so did I. I'm not complaining.

I'm sorry, the misconceptions of science being about majority opinion are something I have deep aversion to.

<!--quoteo(post=1770848:date=May 12 2010, 12:19 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 12:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is indeed very naïve to believe it is so.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should probably clarify that this has no relevance as to public acceptance of the work.

<!--quoteo(post=1770848:date=May 12 2010, 12:19 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 12:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 20th century's success has more to do with the volume of scientific work being done as well as the experimental tools developed to do so (communication such as the Internet springs to mind) rather than humanity transcending into objectivity and selflessness<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it was a direct implication of open and unabridged formation and application of scientific method.

tankefugl

I don't understand. You say you don't understand it, but still you make very absolute claims about its workings and refuse to acknowledge the points put forth from me, Insane and puzl (among others). Would you care to elaborate where your confusion lies and how that allows you to make absolute claims such as that it is not a majority opinion?

Insane

<!--quoteo(post=1770848:date=May 11 2010, 09:19 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 11 2010, 09:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, Draco. You are taking a very condenscending tone here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo(post=1770851:date=May 11 2010, 09:23 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 11 2010, 09:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770851"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Disagreeing is not condescension.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm impressed that you can't even see it. I suppose at least it isn't malicious.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770853:date=May 12 2010, 12:34 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 12:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand. You say you don't understand it, but still you make very absolute claims about its workings and refuse to acknowledge the points put forth from me, Insane and puzl (among others).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not say that, I do not make absolute claims, I have not refused to acknowledge but have refuted some of the points you brought up so far.

If you feel discussion ends once you have spoken, it ends now.

<!--quoteo(post=1770853:date=May 12 2010, 12:34 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 12:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would you care to elaborate where your confusion lies and how that allows you to make absolute claims such as that it is not a majority opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no confusions on the workings of naturalistic methodology, I am correcting misconceptions in direct relevance to the topic. What allows me to make claims is the same thing that does it for you: knowledge. Beyond generally available knowledge, I have worked and am still intermittently working with scientific publication and discourse.

<!--quoteo(post=1770855:date=May 12 2010, 12:38 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 12 2010, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770855"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm impressed that you can't even see it. I suppose at least it isn't malicious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is natural for our upbringing to feel hostile towards disagreement regardless of how politely it is presented. The best I can do is ask you not to.

Otherwise, I am a bit autistic, but surely if I can live with that, so can you.

tankefugl

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You told me I don't understand science, and so did I.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You say there (and previously) that you don't know what science is. Are you trolling or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770860:date=May 12 2010, 01:02 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 01:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770860"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say there (and previously) that you don't know what science is. Are you trolling or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>really</i> do not recall saying that.

As far as I know, science is the process and product of acquisition of knowledge through application of scientific method.

tankefugl

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Uh... That would mean I know what science is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You told me I don't understand science, and so did I.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm sorry, but in the context you wrote this it really seems you do admit to not knowing what it is, which further comes across as false modesty. If that was not the intention, then fair enough, we'll leave it be.

Anyway, I have a question for you: Who decides, if not a general majority, what the scientific consensus is?

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770865:date=May 12 2010, 01:23 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 01:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770865"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry, but in the context you wrote this it really seems you do admit to not knowing what it is, which further comes across as false modesty. If that was not the intention, then fair enough, we'll leave it be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing new to the Internet. Moving on then, no problem.

<!--quoteo(post=1770865:date=May 12 2010, 01:23 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 01:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770865"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway, I have a question for you: Who decides, if not a general majority, what the scientific consensus is?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientific consensus is an auto-antonym in that it's not scientific: it's a majority agreement among scientists, but that in itself has nothing to do with science (as described above).

We like to rely on single authority because that's how we're brought up, without relying on doing our own research; in contrast, research is what science is all about.

Kouji_San

Who will catch the flag in this merry go round, to be able to go for another round for free?

X_Stickman

"Open minded" does not mean "gives equal credit to all new ideas/possibilities". Similarly, science (or the scientific method, or the scientific community, or whatever particular term you want to use) does not treat every new possibility equally. If it did, we'd be bogged down trying to thoroughly test every single idea anyone can ever come up with. Hell, we'd still be stuck with researchers constantly dropping a brick over and over and over for decades, just to see if it floats up on the 10,000,000,000th drop.

That's not how science works. It's not how anyone works. We simply can't assume that all possibilities have an equal chance of being true. We make judgement calls all the time; when you're trying to cross a road, you assume that the cars won't just stop if you walk out into the road without checking. You assume this based on past experience.

Science does the same. New ideas are judged based on their merit, which in itself is determined on how well it gels with old ideas. This is where the idea of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in. It's not just some stupid glib remark that someone throws out when they hear an idea they don't like, it's an important part of science. And it works in the reverse too. Mundane claims don't require that much evidence.


If I tell you I can throw a tennis ball 10 meters, you probably wouldn't even ask for proof. Practically every adult with fully functioning arms can throw a tennis ball 10 meters, so if I said that I could, you'd say "okay" and just believe it. If, however, I said I could throw a tennis ball to Mars, you'd say "prove it". And just being able to throw the ball to where you can't see it any more wouldn't be enough (it'd be impressive, though); you'd want proof that the ball left the atmosphere and ended up on Mars.


That's what this guy right here is claiming. If he'd just said "I can go for, like, 4 days without eating or drinking anything" that'd be somewhat impressive but not exactly unheard of. It'd be a relatively minor feat that a magician might try. But that's not what he's said; he's said that he has gone 70 years without eating or drinking anything.

That is, according to basically everything we know about biology, completely impossible. Either this man is a one of a kind walking medical marvel, or he's lying. Or he's mistaken. Based on past experiences, we know which one is more likely.


Is it impossible? No. Nothing is impossible, literally nothing. Science, and the world, doesn't work on certainties, on 100%s. It works on probailities. And based on everything we know about the human body, we're somewhat safe in assuming that he's wrong for whatever reason (he's insane, he's lying, he's deliberately provoking these scientists to see how credulous they are, whatever). And given the methodology of the testing I've read so far, I wouldn't trust any results that come from this test other than "the man exists". It is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha" target="_blank"> not hard</a> to fake out researchers who want to find positive results.




On another note, the claim that he has spent 70 years without food or water is completely unverifiable to begin with since we don't have proper evidence for the time period.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770875:date=May 12 2010, 02:20 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 02:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770875"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Open minded" does not mean "gives equal credit to all new ideas/possibilities". Similarly, science (or the scientific method, or the scientific community, or whatever particular term you want to use) does not treat every new possibility equally. If it did, we'd be bogged down trying to thoroughly test every single idea anyone can ever come up with. Hell, we'd still be stuck with researchers constantly dropping a brick over and over and over for decades, just to see if it floats up on the 10,000,000,000th drop.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, exactly. The fun thing about that is: there is no decision making process in science. This is why we examine cures for cancer alongside adverse effects of squeaky shoes, and why we construct hadron colliders instead of researching renewable energy: it's entirely up to whoever wants to do what.

<!--quoteo(post=1770875:date=May 12 2010, 02:20 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 02:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770875"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Science does the same. New ideas are judged based on their merit, which in itself is determined on how well it gels with old ideas. This is where the idea of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in. It's not just some stupid glib remark that someone throws out when they hear an idea they don't like, it's an important part of science. And it works in the reverse too. Mundane claims don't require that much evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with that is that it's a purely subjective and arbitrary judgment with no methodological criteria. A starving old guy may be extraordinary to you, but in whatever part of India this guy comes from, it might be that everyone believes it since birth. This notion has nothing to do with science, only common sense and social norm. To assume something to be true based on tradition, majority opinion or personal belief are all well-know fallacies.

Conflicting with old knowledge in itself isn't really an issue: if there's evidence to contradict past assumptions, they are discarded. Simple as.

<!--quoteo(post=1770875:date=May 12 2010, 02:20 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 02:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770875"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is, according to basically everything we know about biology, completely impossible. Either this man is a one of a kind walking medical marvel, or he's lying. Or he's mistaken. Based on past experiences, we know which one is more likely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speculation in itself is hip and dandy, but science is what we use to find out for sure. I wouldn't post the thing if it didn't at least sound scientific...

<!--quoteo(post=1770875:date=May 12 2010, 02:20 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 02:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770875"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On another note, the claim that he has spent 70 years without food or water is completely unverifiable to begin with since we don't have proper evidence for the time period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for the thread title, thought I'd make it entertaining. It is indeed unfalsifiable.

X_Stickman

<!--quoteo(post=1770876:date=May 12 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with that is that it's a purely subjective and arbitrary judgment with no methodological criteria. A starving old guy may be extraordinary to you, but in whatever part of India this guy comes from, it might be that everyone believes it since birth. This notion has nothing to do with science, only common sense and social norm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What people believe has nothing to do with the evidence available. That is why the phrase is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary <b>evidence</b>", not "belief". Whether the entire population of India believes that this man has spent 70 years without food or water or not doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single piece of evidence in the entire world that would support such a claim, and that there is, in fact, tons of evidence that says the exact opposite.


"Extraordinary claim" in this sense doesn't mean "what goes against the cultural flow of the area", which is why people in America, a highly religious country, will use the same phrase when applied to god or other religious beliefs. Extraordinary claims are about what has evidence and what doesn't, not what x amount of people believe.

<!--quoteo(post=1770876:date=May 12 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Conflicting with old knowledge in itself isn't really an issue: if there's evidence to contradict past assumptions, they are discarded. Simple as.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes, except that to overturn established ideas requires solid evidence backed up by a lot of research. What this guy has is him saying "I can do this, y'know", and a group of scientists putting him in an amazingly poorly designed experiment to test it.

Evolution was a controversial idea when it first appeared. It was, for it's time, an extraordinary claim. Which is exactly why Darwin spent so long gathering evidence for it and presenting such a strong case that it's acceptance was inevitable. He didn't just say "seriously guys, it's so totally true" and show someone a picture of a monkey superimposed over a human face, because that evidence would be laughable.


This man *is* making an extraordinary claim. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or arbitary judgements. He is claiming that he has done something that basically every single thing we know about biology says should be impossible. That has nothing to do with cultural, racial or religious bias in the eyes of those saying it's an extraordinary claim; this is objective, not subjective. In addition to this, he has not provided extraordinary evidence. What he has done is fool a bunch of naive scientists. And they *are* naive, the experiment is terribly designed.



Let's look at the claim. He's saying he hasn't taken in food or water for 70 years, and that he still doesn't need to. That is easy to test. Put him in a room with 100% observation and watch him for 2-3 weeks. Simple.

But they haven't done that. They've got all kinds of ridiculous variables. He can gargle water. Why does he need to? He's allowed to leave the room and go outside. Why? That's ridiculous.

They have him set up on MRI scans and electrodes and all that jazz. Again, why? That's completely irrelevant to the test. They're trying to find out how his body copes with not eating or drinking before they even have proof that he's not eating or drinking. This should be a seperate experiment that they carry out <b>after he passes the first one</b> and proves that he doesn't need to eat or drink.


They're just throwing variables in and distracting themselves from what should really be an amazingly simple experiment. Lock him inside a plastic room after thoroughly searching both him and the room, then watch him for 3 weeks. That's as complex as the experiment needs to be. By allowing him to gargle water, by allowing him to leave the room, by throwing in electrodes and MRI scans and stuff they're just complicating the entire thing and screwing up any possible results.


<!--quoteo(post=1770876:date=May 12 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Speculation in itself is hip and dandy, but science is what we use to find out for sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, we don't subject every single ridiculous claim to full scientific scrutiny, because the amount of things people can claim is endless. We have to make pre-judgements on issues, or we end up bogged down in crap. If I said that I could fart myself into orbit, "but only when the conditions are right", would you want to fund a full research project around me? Get the army involved to see if there are any military applications to orbit farting paratroopers? Of course not. It's a patently absurd claim.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What people believe has nothing to do with the evidence available.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's my whole point.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is why the phrase is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary <b>evidence</b>", not "belief".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Extraordinary" is the part you're missing. Whether something is "extraordinary" is a subjective judgment based on personal belief. And belief does not matter.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...tons of evidence that says the exact opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless this man was tested for survival without food or water before and failed, no, there isn't.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, except that to overturn established ideas requires solid evidence backed up by a lot of research.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything in science requires solid evidence backed up by a lot of research. Falsification is standard practice; everything stands true only until it's proven wrong.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Evolution was a controversial idea when it first appeared. It was, for it's time, an extraordinary claim. Which is exactly why Darwin spent so long gathering evidence for it and presenting such a strong case that it's acceptance was inevitable. He didn't just say "seriously guys, it's so totally true" and show someone a picture of a monkey superimposed over a human face, because that evidence would be laughable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is why these guys are going ahead and testing the claim instead of just letting the guy claim it.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Put him in a room with 100% observation and watch him for 2-3 weeks. Simple. But they haven't done that. They've got all kinds of ridiculous variables. He can gargle water. Why does he need to? He's allowed to leave the room and go outside. Why? That's ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Test subjects are not prisoners. They accounted for gargling by measuring amount of water given, and leaving the room with mobile cameras. Contaminants are nothing out of ordinary for any studies, and can be accounted for.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They have him set up on MRI scans and electrodes and all that jazz. Again, why? That's completely irrelevant to the test. They're trying to find out how his body copes with not eating or drinking before they even have proof that he's not eating or drinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know from experience that all of the described tests are used to objectively test nutrition, hydration, hunger, waste and metabolism, and have indeed been successfully used to expose many frauds before. Unless outright faked - which I suspect to be the case - they are more objective judgment for the test than any observation could possibly hope for.

<!--quoteo(post=1770878:date=May 12 2010, 03:12 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, we don't subject every single ridiculous claim to full scientific scrutiny, because the amount of things people can claim is endless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed we don't. We do whatever we want to do. In this case, the guys wanted to test claims of an old effeminate yogi.

X_Stickman

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's my whole point.


"Extraordinary" is the part you're missing. Whether something is "extraordinary" is a subjective judgment based on personal belief.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No it's not. Extraordinary is something that goes against existing evidence. The man's claiming that he can live without food and water. Everything we have says that should be impossible; there isn't a single mammal, bird, reptile or fish on the planet that can do what he is saying he can do, nor are there any documented cases of any individuals doing the same. For him to claim that he is, quite literally, the only known being in the history of the world to be able to do that is an extraordinary claim. I don't know why this seems strange to you.

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unless this man was tested for survival without food or water before and failed, no, there isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes there is. You don't need to disprove (which is impossible to begin with) every claim to show that there's evidence against it. If I claimed I could jump to the moon, existing evidence of the capabilities of human leg muscles, combined with our knowledge of gravity, counts as evidence against that claim. I don't have to spend 20 years trying to jump to the moon to come up with the only existing evidence that I can't do it.

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everything in science requires solid evidence backed up by a lot of research. Falsification is standard practice; everything stands true only until it's proven wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The default position of science, or any research really, is that whatever you're testing is untrue/doesn't exist until you have evidence to prove that it does, not the other way around. You provide evidence *for* things not *against* them.

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this is why these guys are going ahead and testing the claim instead of just letting the guy claim it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they're doing it in an incredibly stupid way.

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Test subjects are not prisoners. They accounted for gargling by measuring amount of water given, and leaving the room with mobile cameras. Contaminants are nothing out of ordinary for any studies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then the claim can't be tested properly, can it? If he can't (or won't) submit to proper experimental procedures then the experiment will always be flawed. A mobile camera simply isn't good enough if he's walking around outside; it won't be focussed on him constantly. He has chances to eat.

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know from experience that all of the described tests are used to objectively test nutrition, hydration, hunger, waste and metabolism, and have indeed been successfully used to expose many frauds before. Unless outright faked - which I suspect to be the case - they are more objective judgment for the test than any observation could possibly hope for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point. At this stage in the experiment, no one should care how he's getting his nutrition. This stage of the experiment should just be testing whether or not he's eating or drinking. Once you've shown that he's not eating or drinking, *then* you move on to testing how exactly he is getting his nutrition. Going back to my moon jumping analogy, this is like testing whether I could survive in space or on the lunar surface before I've even gotten 1ft off the ground.

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 01:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Indeed we don't. We do whatever we want to do. In this case, the guys wanted to test claims of an old effeminate yogi.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And, as above, they're doing it in a particularly stupid way. So I'm criticising it.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No it's not. Extraordinary is something that goes against existing evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not extraordinary, that's just conflicting. In this case, if found true, all it would do is falsify the notion that people can't live without nutrition at all - a negative statement - it wouldn't actually conflict with the fact we ordinarily do.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why this seems strange to you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not strange to me at all, I have myriads of objections to all of this, indeed dozenfold more than what have been brought up so far. What I'm getting at is this ridiculous notion that we can just dictate science what is or isn't instead of studying it.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes there is. You don't need to disprove (which is impossible to begin with) every claim to show that there's evidence against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're contradicting yourself here. If there's no evidence, there's no evidence. You can't just pronounce something wrong, you need to test it.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I claimed I could jump to the moon, existing evidence of the capabilities of human leg muscles, combined with our knowledge of gravity, counts as evidence against that claim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And until you've actually tested it, you can't say you can't, you can only speculate. Funny, isn't it?.. It's because you're confusing practical considerations with scientific ones.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The default position of science, or any research really, is that whatever you're testing is untrue/doesn't exist until you have evidence to prove that it does, not the other way around. You provide evidence *for* things not *against* them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no default position in science other than "we don't know". Science collects evidence both for and against. You're quite heavily mistaken here.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And they're doing it in an incredibly stupid way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I politely disagree.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then the claim can't be tested properly, can it? If he can't (or won't) submit to proper experimental procedures then the experiment will always be flawed. A mobile camera simply isn't good enough if he's walking around outside; it won't be focussed on him constantly. He has chances to eat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The testing is proper as long as all contaminants are accounted for. You cannot demand having no contaminants at all, this is neither physical possibility nor a requirement.

I don't think you're aware of just how many errors are routinely accounted for in any study - it is really quite glaring if you've seen any - thus you're requesting egregious requirements that are neither possible nor applicable; again, this is nothing out of ordinary, we know how to account for anything outside of ideal, it poses no problem as long as we can and do (and indeed it seems these guys have).

A closed vacuum chamber with nothing but the man restricted by steel chains connected to a bunch of devices would be <i>wonderful</i> in terms of rigour, but somehow I doubt he'd volunteer.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're missing the point. At this stage in the experiment, no one should care how he's getting his nutrition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstand. Because the tests are used to measure nutrition, they are used to determine whether or not it is taken. A sleigh of hand might draw a cookie out of sight of the camera, but a blood test will always show the betraying sugar levels.

<!--quoteo(post=1770882:date=May 12 2010, 03:41 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ May 12 2010, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as above, they're doing it in a particularly stupid way. So I'm criticising it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.

My foremost concern with this is lack of independent access or verification, but this should be fixed by peer review and replication.

Kouji_San

So all quotes aside, you guys actually made a point or what? Or are we going to see this go around for another few circlestrafing dodging bunnyhopping madness?

Cereal_KillR

I can't see how gargling water is considered as part of the protocol. A mouth is made of mucous tissue, and is especially porous because of that. The mere fact of gargling I'm guessing is a way of getting nutrients.


I don't think anybody's debating he's very special and can survive amazingly well in extreme conditions. But there is a huge stretch between saying he has an amazing metabolism and attributing divine powers to him

steppin'razor

but if we don't understand it, it must be religion!

Insane

<!--quoteo(post=1770880:date=May 12 2010, 12:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 12:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Extraordinary" is the part you're missing. Whether something is "extraordinary" is a subjective judgment based on personal belief. And belief does not matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In this context, that isn't true. In terms of Sagan's axiom, an "extraordinary claim" is one that involves the most unanswered questions.

tankefugl

The flaw here is that you are not talking about the scientific method or science in whole, Draco. You are simply talking about (borderline absolute) objectivity alone and label it as the scientific method. In view of this, your statements do after all make sense.

However, while objectivity is indeed a virtue in scientific pursuit, it is not the only and not an absolute requirement in the scientific method. This is accounted for, and not doing so would be (as previously stated) naïve. In addition, the scientific method is not a strict set of rules to be followed, but a notion of what is good practice through a consensus on the goal "as much objectivity as we can practically achieve". The application of scientific methods do vary from fields to fields (natural sciences are slightly different than some social sciences for example).

While you admirably want objectivity, you do lack the entire practical scope of the scientific method. As earlier stated, it is unescapably a <b>method</b> and thus has a practical goal as well as practical limitations. In this view, "extraordinary" and "scientific consensus" are indeed valid and highly usable terms.

(I too am involved in science, by the way. I wasn't intending to argue from authority, but since you decided to do so I might as well level the field.)

Monkfish

People who are rocket scientists:

Tankefugl: 1
Draco_2k: 0

People who are wrong:

Draco_2k: 1
Everyone else: 0

People who are lying about not eating/drinking for 70 years

That indian guy: 1
Everyone else: 0

tjosan

"Scientific consensus is an auto-antonym in that it's not scientific: it's a majority agreement among scientists, but that in itself has nothing to do with science (as described above).

We like to rely on single authority because that's how we're brought up, without relying on doing our own research; in contrast, research is what science is all about. "

Only got this far. Very interesting discussion I think..

Anyway I wanted to quote that part because that's so true... it's a fantastic contradiction, science. It requires as close to objectivity as possible in evaluating results from individual studies, but not in deciding what results to look for nor does it really require objectivity when integrating those results into the 'consensus'.

[edit] as for those asking what the point of the discussion is, or when anyone will get the point - that's not really possible or [önskansvärt]. It's a philosophical topic. Consensi on philosophical topics are dangerous.

tankefugl

<!--quoteo(post=1770929:date=May 12 2010, 12:28 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 12 2010, 12:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway I wanted to quote that part because that's so true... it's a fantastic contradiction, science. It requires as close to objectivity as possible in evaluating results from individual studies, but not in deciding what results to look for nor does it really require objectivity when integrating those results into the 'consensus'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think anyone here has claimed that science should be without lack of objectivity, so that is jumping a bit far ahead in conclusions. What we are arguing is that heuristics are indeed used as a part of the process that is carried through, and that the existence of such heuristics are indeed required for the method to have any practical value. We also argue that the scientific method is robust enough to accomodate for variations of personal bias, as the personal bias is at large diminished.

Without a consensus there will be no theories, and the utility of the body of knowledge known as science is lessened.

We further acknowledge that this does not encompass absolute objectivity, but an approximation to objectivity as good as it can be achieved within the constraints of humanity.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1770899:date=May 12 2010, 05:58 AM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ May 12 2010, 05:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770899"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't see how gargling water is considered as part of the protocol. A mouth is made of mucous tissue, and is especially porous because of that. The mere fact of gargling I'm guessing is a way of getting nutrients.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite right. However, with that assumption, it only shifts the claim towards "man lives on nothing but few drops of water".

<!--quoteo(post=1770899:date=May 12 2010, 05:58 AM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ May 12 2010, 05:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770899"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think anybody's debating he's very special and can survive amazingly well in extreme conditions. But there is a huge stretch between saying he has an amazing metabolism and attributing divine powers to him<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the job of religion; the job of science is to poke him with a stick for a while.

<!--quoteo(post=1770922:date=May 12 2010, 12:11 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ May 12 2010, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770922"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In this context, that isn't true. In terms of Sagan's axiom, an "extraordinary claim" is one that involves the most unanswered questions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe Sagan meant it like that; that'd be a rather arbitrary judgment, considering we don't know anything about anything, ultimately, and all that does is literally retard new knowledge. "Extraordinary" sounds good to us because it's intuitive, we all keep notes of what exactly is weird or normal, but just like good and evil, no such classification exists in real life.

My point is that it's a valid rule of thumb - we all know that, I think - but is at best inadequate and at worst dangerous to scientific conduct.

<!--quoteo(post=1770929:date=May 12 2010, 01:28 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 12 2010, 01:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only got this far. Very interesting discussion I think...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh. It's your usual, as Kouj San said, merry-go-round. But kudos if you think it's interesting, I found it amusing myself, at least.

<!--quoteo(post=1770929:date=May 12 2010, 01:28 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 12 2010, 01:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway I wanted to quote that part because that's so true... it's a fantastic contradiction, science. It requires as close to objectivity as possible in evaluating results from individual studies, but not in deciding what results to look for nor does it really require objectivity when integrating those results into the 'consensus'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hah. Exactly. I really hope we'll learn to deal with those eventually, it's a shame just how much educated effort goes to waste because of it...

<!--quoteo(post=1770931:date=May 12 2010, 02:30 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 02:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770931"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Without a consensus there will be no theories, and the utility of the body of knowledge known as science is lessened.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't really have much to do with consensus. Scientific theories emerge once there is enough understanding to piece together a coherent picture of something; consensus in that picture is a by-product, not a prerequisite.

Thaldarin

Indian man is human. We know physical limitations of a human. Thus he's lying through his front teeth. Lock the thread already.

tjosan

I really dont hope "we'll learn to deal with those eventually". Nothing is as frightening, or indeed as futile and pointless, as science without conscience.