Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins 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.
Fine.
To date there is no evidence that [dowsing/ telepathy/ psychic abilities/ paranormal phenomena] exists, and so for the moment I will construct my model of the universe (see avatar) on the basis that such do not exist.
I did actually say this (or words to that effect) several times before. This does express my position best, I'm just a fan of brevity.
To date there is no evidence that [dowsing/ telepathy/ psychic abilities/ paranormal phenomena] exists, and so for the moment I will construct my model of the universe (see avatar) on the basis that such do not exist.
I did actually say this (or words to that effect) several times before. This does express my position best, I'm just a fan of brevity.
Chris, no, we can’t say there is no God, but this is something very different. This is physical. It’s something that has been observed by millions of people.
Jim, stop rolling your eyes. It doesn’t suit you.
//But this always seems to leave the door open for people to jump on some straw or other, such as the one you do, in the case of dowsing, or of psychic effects, that there might be a chance that it is mistaken. Well, I suppose there is one, technically. But it's tiny. Minuscule.//
Because you restrict possibilities to current knowledge, that is your assumption - and assumptions aren't facts.
Jim, stop rolling your eyes. It doesn’t suit you.
//But this always seems to leave the door open for people to jump on some straw or other, such as the one you do, in the case of dowsing, or of psychic effects, that there might be a chance that it is mistaken. Well, I suppose there is one, technically. But it's tiny. Minuscule.//
Because you restrict possibilities to current knowledge, that is your assumption - and assumptions aren't facts.
I think every phenomenon can be explained in a scientific way- whether we are advanced enough to be able to explain it yet is a different matter. It makes sense to be open-minded to all possibilities until they can be proven one way or another.
Unfortunately, you can only prove things positively, you can't prove an absence of something, hence why religion still exists.
Unfortunately, you can only prove things positively, you can't prove an absence of something, hence why religion still exists.
Animals have the ability to find water. If they simply wandered around in the jungle or on the veldt hoping to find it by accident they would die of dehydration. We say they can 'smell' water but it doesn't seem to me to have a smell. Why then shouldn't this sense be present in some humans too?
Water is an extra-ordinary substance and we still have much to learn about it beyond it being simply H2O.
Water is an extra-ordinary substance and we still have much to learn about it beyond it being simply H2O.
But then my assumptions are based on facts. What are yours based on? Personal accounts, as far as I can make out. It's perhaps a matter of taste, but for me personal accounts carry very little weight when it comes to matters of Science, or matters that can be tested by Science.
Every experiment ever taken needs to be scrutinised, because it would be a bad thing to base conclusions on flawed evidence. That scrutiny, though, needs to be more of just a hand-wavy "Is it possible you may have missed something?" Of course it's possible, but if you are going to do anything with that you would have to say what it is, how we could avoid missing it in future, and ideally also perform this further test yourself. You've already said earlier (effectively) that you don't know what, so presumably you can't manage the other two either. As long as this is the case, for you and for others, then I don't see that there is any problem in assuming that the experimental conclusions are valid. Granted I was perhaps dogmatic about it, but there are worse things to be dogmatic about.
Every experiment ever taken needs to be scrutinised, because it would be a bad thing to base conclusions on flawed evidence. That scrutiny, though, needs to be more of just a hand-wavy "Is it possible you may have missed something?" Of course it's possible, but if you are going to do anything with that you would have to say what it is, how we could avoid missing it in future, and ideally also perform this further test yourself. You've already said earlier (effectively) that you don't know what, so presumably you can't manage the other two either. As long as this is the case, for you and for others, then I don't see that there is any problem in assuming that the experimental conclusions are valid. Granted I was perhaps dogmatic about it, but there are worse things to be dogmatic about.
@ Khandro
" We say they can 'smell' water but it doesn't seem to me to have a smell. Why then shouldn't this sense be present in some humans too? "
Do we? I never have.
"Water is an extra-ordinary substance and we still have much to learn about it beyond it being simply H2O"
Such as? Water is indeed amazing stuff, but we already know quite a lot about it....
" We say they can 'smell' water but it doesn't seem to me to have a smell. Why then shouldn't this sense be present in some humans too? "
Do we? I never have.
"Water is an extra-ordinary substance and we still have much to learn about it beyond it being simply H2O"
Such as? Water is indeed amazing stuff, but we already know quite a lot about it....
What is the problem in assuming that the experimental conclusions, in this case, are valid? They pass the usual tests -- replicated being one of them. Perhaps, if I may say so, you aren't listening to what the experiments are telling us. If you can spell out without some "might be missing something" what it is that is the problem, I'll listen. But you haven't so far.
Incidentally, this is why I get shirty sometimes about this. Because it seems as if some people just dismiss the results of experiment without ever explaining -- clearly, scientifically -- why they do so.
Incidentally, this is why I get shirty sometimes about this. Because it seems as if some people just dismiss the results of experiment without ever explaining -- clearly, scientifically -- why they do so.
I'll try.
lets take ball lightning. It was an observed phenomenon years and years and years before it could be replicated by experiment. That's a fact. its doesn't invalidate the experimental attempts, it just meant that there were other things that needed to be understood, discovered, invented before ball lightning could be replicated under experimental conditions.
lets take ball lightning. It was an observed phenomenon years and years and years before it could be replicated by experiment. That's a fact. its doesn't invalidate the experimental attempts, it just meant that there were other things that needed to be understood, discovered, invented before ball lightning could be replicated under experimental conditions.
Actually no-one has replicated ball lightning reliably under experimental conditions. The topic is outside my field of expertise, though (or, for that matter, anybody's), so who knows? Assuming the personal accounts are accurate, it's unlikely that anyone will be able to replicate this in an experiment because:
- the mechanism is unknown;
- the conditions in which it emerges are unknown;
This is superficially similar to dowsing, I suppose, but there is a key difference: no-one (or at least, no large group of people) has ever claimed that they can make ball lightning occur in a simple way, whereas dowsing apparently just needs a pair of hands and two sticks, or a bent piece of metal, or similar. In that sense it is easier to test, and then accept or reject, dowsing than it is ball lightning. Additionally there exist plausible mechanisms for ball lightning, but to date no explanation for dowsing is even plausible, let alone accepted.
The ease of the test is important -- and then the results are very clear. Dowsing does not stand up (so far, at least) to scrutiny. Ball lightning I don't know about, but it's still very much in the realm of being poorly understood.
- the mechanism is unknown;
- the conditions in which it emerges are unknown;
This is superficially similar to dowsing, I suppose, but there is a key difference: no-one (or at least, no large group of people) has ever claimed that they can make ball lightning occur in a simple way, whereas dowsing apparently just needs a pair of hands and two sticks, or a bent piece of metal, or similar. In that sense it is easier to test, and then accept or reject, dowsing than it is ball lightning. Additionally there exist plausible mechanisms for ball lightning, but to date no explanation for dowsing is even plausible, let alone accepted.
The ease of the test is important -- and then the results are very clear. Dowsing does not stand up (so far, at least) to scrutiny. Ball lightning I don't know about, but it's still very much in the realm of being poorly understood.
@Khandro Does this
"LG; //we already know quite a lot about it....//"
Say there is nothing left to learn? Did I say "we know everything there is to know?"
That having been said, I would be surprised if there was anything transformative left to learn about its nature - something totally out of the left field, inexplicable by our current knowledge base.
Are you thinking of the water bridge?
"LG; //we already know quite a lot about it....//"
Say there is nothing left to learn? Did I say "we know everything there is to know?"
That having been said, I would be surprised if there was anything transformative left to learn about its nature - something totally out of the left field, inexplicable by our current knowledge base.
Are you thinking of the water bridge?
Do you mean this:
http://
?
If so an explanation already exists:
http://
The phenomenon is a new one to me, though.
http://
?
If so an explanation already exists:
http://
The phenomenon is a new one to me, though.
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.