ChatterBank1 min ago
Questioning The Conclusions Of Science
This question arises from the discussion in R&S on the dubious practice of Water Divining. Sometimes the conclusions of science result not from positive evidence that the subject is invalid, but from absence of evidence. Whilst I know the scientifically minded will say ‘until evidence is forthcoming, I won’t consider the possibility’, but the question is do those who accept the conclusions of science ever waver and consider the possibility that evidence could exist that science has missed – or has overlooked – or is currently technologically incapable of recognising or testing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, I don’t know what you mean. I might occasionally become exasperated with going around the houses to apparently no avail, but I never ignore you – and whilst I do take the positions adopted by a majority of scientists very seriously indeed, I am not blind to the possibility that science can be wrong.
//each case has to be taken on its merits.//
I agree – but that’s precisely what you don’t appear to do. You come across as believing that one rule fits all – and if it doesn’t conform to that rule then it’s automatically invalid.
LG, piezo-electric effect: true, there appears to have been no progress made, which is a pity really, because it’s practical and feasible, and further research might throw some light on what is actually, physically, going on. However, as someone else said, who is going to fund it?
I do think that testing psychic/paranormal behaviour is currently beyond our capabilities for the simple reason that we have no idea what we’re dealing with – but time will hopefully tell. I don’t believe for a moment that our present understanding is absolute and final. We’re not doing badly, but we certainly haven’t reached our apex –and therefore, in my opinion, the Shakespeare quote holds as good today as it ever did. ;o)
//each case has to be taken on its merits.//
I agree – but that’s precisely what you don’t appear to do. You come across as believing that one rule fits all – and if it doesn’t conform to that rule then it’s automatically invalid.
LG, piezo-electric effect: true, there appears to have been no progress made, which is a pity really, because it’s practical and feasible, and further research might throw some light on what is actually, physically, going on. However, as someone else said, who is going to fund it?
I do think that testing psychic/paranormal behaviour is currently beyond our capabilities for the simple reason that we have no idea what we’re dealing with – but time will hopefully tell. I don’t believe for a moment that our present understanding is absolute and final. We’re not doing badly, but we certainly haven’t reached our apex –and therefore, in my opinion, the Shakespeare quote holds as good today as it ever did. ;o)
@ Naomi
I have no idea who might want to fund research specifically into the piezo-electric effect. Were it truly a promising avenue of research,then I do not doubt that the original author could find funds from his own departmental budget to follow up that line of enquiry; Were it truly a promising avenue, I am sure sponsors could have been found. The fact that nothing has come from the original hypothesis in over 2 decades speaks volumes, for me....
If something we currently term a paranormal effect - dowsing, for example, or telepathy, or ghostly presences that allegedly effect the temperature and lighting - then these real world effects can be tested for in a controlled manner.
If such a claimed effect can demonstrate an success rate no better than random chance would suggest, then why believe that there is any effect at all? Its not the mechanism that is being tested, it is the real world effect of that mechanism. If the mechanism it is objectively true and real - if dowsing, for instance, was a real ability - then dowsers should be able to detect whatever they are dowsing for better than someone just randomly pointing to places in a field, and the upshot of the controlled testing to date is that they cannot.
As a slight aside - If you accept that dowsing for water is possible, proven by personal anecdote etc, by an as yet unknown mechanism - what are your thoughts on bomb detectors that purportedly worked by the same mechanism?
I have no idea who might want to fund research specifically into the piezo-electric effect. Were it truly a promising avenue of research,then I do not doubt that the original author could find funds from his own departmental budget to follow up that line of enquiry; Were it truly a promising avenue, I am sure sponsors could have been found. The fact that nothing has come from the original hypothesis in over 2 decades speaks volumes, for me....
If something we currently term a paranormal effect - dowsing, for example, or telepathy, or ghostly presences that allegedly effect the temperature and lighting - then these real world effects can be tested for in a controlled manner.
If such a claimed effect can demonstrate an success rate no better than random chance would suggest, then why believe that there is any effect at all? Its not the mechanism that is being tested, it is the real world effect of that mechanism. If the mechanism it is objectively true and real - if dowsing, for instance, was a real ability - then dowsers should be able to detect whatever they are dowsing for better than someone just randomly pointing to places in a field, and the upshot of the controlled testing to date is that they cannot.
As a slight aside - If you accept that dowsing for water is possible, proven by personal anecdote etc, by an as yet unknown mechanism - what are your thoughts on bomb detectors that purportedly worked by the same mechanism?
There will always be anecdotal "evidence" for everything, whether it's dowsing, psychic abilities, religion, alien abduction or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything negative (as an absence) so those stories will always stand.
The onus is always to prove the positive and with dowsing, as with those mentioned above, there is not enough proof, even though there has been thousands of years to come up with something. If the Scientists, who are the experts in how things work, have not seen enough to be convinced- that's good enough for me.
The onus is always to prove the positive and with dowsing, as with those mentioned above, there is not enough proof, even though there has been thousands of years to come up with something. If the Scientists, who are the experts in how things work, have not seen enough to be convinced- that's good enough for me.
LG, I don’t know anything about the bomb detectors you’re talking about. Incidentally, I don’t believe dowsing - or anything else - is paranormal. I actually think that one of the main reasons these things are rarely seriously considered is that they are tarred with the paranormal or supernatural labels.
Pixie, yes, I know what – or whom – the onus is on. That doesn’t allay my curiosity though – or my suspicions that the scientists who are the experts, simply have no idea how some things work.
Pixie, yes, I know what – or whom – the onus is on. That doesn’t allay my curiosity though – or my suspicions that the scientists who are the experts, simply have no idea how some things work.
@Naomi - These bomb detectors, Naomi.
http://
There have been a spate of prosecutions recently, resulting in at least one guy being jailed for 10 years....
http://
There have been a spate of prosecutions recently, resulting in at least one guy being jailed for 10 years....
It gained the paranormal tag thanks to things like dowsers turning up and getting 'strong responses' from the centre of one of Doug and Dave's crop formations - much to their amusement, I have to add.
By the way, I think that last sidetrack was set off by me. As Jim pointed out for me, it's all about scientists' standards of proof.
Naomi hadn't explicitly equated the "science overlooks certain things" with any specific research areas. I wanted to see if it was a sideways reference to what the rest of us label as 'paranormal'. I think I got my answer.
By the way, I think that last sidetrack was set off by me. As Jim pointed out for me, it's all about scientists' standards of proof.
Naomi hadn't explicitly equated the "science overlooks certain things" with any specific research areas. I wanted to see if it was a sideways reference to what the rest of us label as 'paranormal'. I think I got my answer.
Well because dowsing has never been solely about detecting water. The same principle is claimed for people who can detect minerals, ores, gemstones,oil deposits, lost keys, you name it.
And there are some dowsers who claim they can dowse using a pendulum and a map.
It seems to me that if you accept the principle that dowsing can work for water, or minerals, then it would not be unreasonable to accept that people who accept that principle might accept that it would be possible to dowse for bombs.....
And there are some dowsers who claim they can dowse using a pendulum and a map.
It seems to me that if you accept the principle that dowsing can work for water, or minerals, then it would not be unreasonable to accept that people who accept that principle might accept that it would be possible to dowse for bombs.....
If we are discussing the piezoelectric paper, I did give it a read. I'm slightly puzzled. By your own standards, that an experiment ought to recreate exactly the conditions it's attempting to test, this falls wildly short. The piezoelectric effect is tested by having a bone exposed to being hit by a hammer, and also to light from the television, among other things. None of which happens in dowsing -- if anything does at all, it certainly isn't the water hitting bones with a hammer, and they are also buried by flesh anyway. So I'm not sure that it's any more useful than the series of experiments I was proposing earlier.
By my standards it's a paper that seems to establish what was known already -- that bone is piezoelectric -- and therefore tells us nothing new.
By my standards it's a paper that seems to establish what was known already -- that bone is piezoelectric -- and therefore tells us nothing new.
My tuppence ~ I can't completely dismiss the possibility that dowsing as a method doesn't offer some advantages to the process of finding water. If it does I suspect the advantage it provides is a psycho-physiological one attributable to it's contribution to the ability to focus a dowsers attention on established sensory cues triggering a motor response. Whatever the case or possible affect might be, I suspect such a possibility would by virtue of the complexity of the cognitive process involved and the difficulties inherent in setting up an appropriate field test, be no less notoriously difficult to pin down and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jim, that’s naughty. Yes, I did say experiments should be conducted in circumstances that replicate those of the claim – but that was in response to your suggestion of hanging rods over a bath covered in plastic, and then turning the taps on! I found that report from a reputable source and since it offers a potential solution, I thought it worthy of consideration. Clearly the suggestions there which may …. or may not …. throw some light on this, thereby casting doubt upon the current scientific position that this is a load of baloney, did not suit your agenda – which is to cling to current findings. Not good, Jim.
Look chaps, we’re going around in circles, but the bottom line is that Jim’s link posted on the other thread states ‘"There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water, but success could be due to factors other than divining ability."….. which I fully accept. From my point of view, the majority of people here and on the other thread claim that in their experience, dowsing works. Having said that, three or four here, despite most of them having had no personal experience at all, insist it doesn’t. Now frankly, I don’t believe that most people expose themselves to ridicule and derision for no reason, so whether you are scientists or not, you are human beings, and as such you are as fallible as the rest of us. Personally, I am willing to say that science may be mistaken, but I am not willing to say that all those who claim that their experiences are genuine are any less rational, any less intelligent, any more deluded, or any more mistaken than any one of you. Are you?
Look chaps, we’re going around in circles, but the bottom line is that Jim’s link posted on the other thread states ‘"There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water, but success could be due to factors other than divining ability."….. which I fully accept. From my point of view, the majority of people here and on the other thread claim that in their experience, dowsing works. Having said that, three or four here, despite most of them having had no personal experience at all, insist it doesn’t. Now frankly, I don’t believe that most people expose themselves to ridicule and derision for no reason, so whether you are scientists or not, you are human beings, and as such you are as fallible as the rest of us. Personally, I am willing to say that science may be mistaken, but I am not willing to say that all those who claim that their experiences are genuine are any less rational, any less intelligent, any more deluded, or any more mistaken than any one of you. Are you?
Presumably, all the experimental evidence in the link I gave you, that shows that dowsing seems not to work in a mysterious way, didn't suit his agenda either, since he made no mention of any of it. I don't have an agenda, I think, except that I want to be as right as possible, and who doesn't want that? If a reputable experiment showed that everything I have said so far was baloney I'd accept that, but so far no experiment exists, and there is no reason to expect that it will. Absent such an experiment, you probably have little reason to think I'm telling the truth when I say I'd accept it -- but then, ironically, that's half of my point. There isn't such an experiment, and all indications are that there never will be.
I've never claimed to be less fallible than "the rest of you", either. It's simply a truth that humans are fallible -- as you accept -- but that scientists tend to take far more care to avoid those fallacies and mistakes than most people. They may not always succeed, but at least they try. That effort has to count for something, surely? And how many people scrutinise their actions so carefully, taking into account all possible factors while trying to eliminate other possibilities? Even if they want to, they may not have the time, effort, or, sadly, the know-how to do so.
In another recent thread about mediums/ clairvoyants, I said what I did from a similar position of lack of personal experience. I'd bet that, if ever I met a psychic and took part, seriously, I'd probably look on that experience in a similar way to how you look on that one you mentioned. Personal experience, I think, will over-ride everything else, for almost everyone, almost all of the time. I'm no exception. But equally, it wouldn't matter. Personal experience is also no substitute for cold data.
I've never claimed to be less fallible than "the rest of you", either. It's simply a truth that humans are fallible -- as you accept -- but that scientists tend to take far more care to avoid those fallacies and mistakes than most people. They may not always succeed, but at least they try. That effort has to count for something, surely? And how many people scrutinise their actions so carefully, taking into account all possible factors while trying to eliminate other possibilities? Even if they want to, they may not have the time, effort, or, sadly, the know-how to do so.
In another recent thread about mediums/ clairvoyants, I said what I did from a similar position of lack of personal experience. I'd bet that, if ever I met a psychic and took part, seriously, I'd probably look on that experience in a similar way to how you look on that one you mentioned. Personal experience, I think, will over-ride everything else, for almost everyone, almost all of the time. I'm no exception. But equally, it wouldn't matter. Personal experience is also no substitute for cold data.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.