Questioning The Conclusions Of Science

[naomi24]

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?

[LazyGun]

Not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but Mariner again seems to be suggesting that the scientific approach is dogmatic and refuses to accomodate other options. Science does not - it admits of the possibility of alternative explanations, but assigns a probability to such alternates, based upon available evidence and plausibility. No evidence, probability close to zero, it is as simple as that.

Mariner correctly states that science evolves, develops and changes, but the key phrase there is evolves - Most modern scientific discoveries are an extension of what we already know - additive rather than transformative.

I am not going to try and argue against anecdotal evidence; That becomes futile because people often feel slighted if their personal recollection is called into question. But thats what science does, in all honesty. If you really wish for alleged phenomena like dowsing to become accepted, prove that is an actual phenomenon, with observation and data and reproducible results.

Until then, I remain sceptical :)

[Davethedog]

Water divining doesn't work no ifs no buts. If you think you can do it, write to James Randi Educational foundation at:


7095 Hollywood Blvd. No. 1170
Los Angeles
CA
90028

Set your own agreed rules and when you prove by your own rules that it works he will give you $1,000,000, easy.

Its open to all "psychic" phenomenon and has been since 1964, over a thousand people have attempted to prove their abilities, using agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. So far JREF has paid $0.

There is a huge difference between the unexplained and the unexplainable.

[naomi24]

Larry, how odd!

Mariner, science is open to new evidence, but it seems to me it’s closed to speculation and curiosity. Had that been the case in the past, I just wonder where science would have been now.

Dave, Randi's challenge pops up ad infinitum.

[jim360]

"It seems to be closed to speculation and curiosity." Oh please. Start speculating about something serious and you'll find that I'm all ears. My entire job for the next four years is speculating and being curious -- but about things that have a rather higher probability of being reasonable than this dowsing nonsense.

LG and I have tried to explain to you how science works, how evidence works, and for that matter how I work.

Speculating about Dowsing was precisely why other scientists experimented on it. In 1948. And again a few years later. And again some time after that. And in 2006. Eventually there comes a point where curiosity turns into sheer bloody-mindedness.

[jim360]

Oh, and don't pretend you're speculating either. At least not in any meaningful sense. "Could such and such possibly be wrong?" isn't speculating unless you also back it up with some good reason why it might be. Which you and others have failed to do so far.

[naomi24]

Jim, Although we’re talking about water divining at the moment, the thread isn’t about that. It’s about the reluctance of scientists – not science per se - to speculate that there may be more to the world than meets the eye.

“Oh please”? Evidently it’s not only curiosity that turns into sheer bloody-mindedness! I know how science works - no need to explain – but if the answers here frustrate you because you think you know better than everyone else, don’t respond – and don’t treat people as fools. Generally, they are not.

[naomi24]

Jim, I never pretend. Get that straight.

[Khandro]

If the L-shaped rods are held via plastic sleeves, any deviation from the absolute vertical will make the horizontal part move by gravity. If a simple device was made to keep the sleeves constantly vertical - by lasers or gyroscopics - and if the rods were to then move, if might be a more compelling submission.

[jim360]

Great. Then stop pretending you know how Science works. You've spent an entire thread -- two of them, in fact -- demonstrating the precise opposite, whatever you may think.

Imagine where Science would be if it had to spend the next 100 years going over everything it's done so far just to satisfy everyone who didn't understand what was going on in the first place that it got it right.

[naomi24]

Jim, your arrogance is breath-taking! Don't be so damned rude! I do not lie. If you can't be civil, stop posting.

[jim360]

My arrogance?! I'm not the one who's arrogant enough to question 100 years of scientific work and research because of three people talking on half a minute of a radio show, and then ignore or reject all the attempts to explain this by people who, given that they are actually scientists, might just know what they are talking about.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you seem to have missed the point, it is the putative sensitivity of the operator who is holding the rods that is important, not the rods themselves.

[jomifl]

Jim, I only got to be called patronising :-(

[jim360]

I know, there's no justice is there!

Naomi, just to be clear and all. I am absolutely not accusing you, or anyone else, of lying. There is a big difference between lying and being mistaken.

[jake-the-peg]

There's a good reason why Randi's challenge keeps popping up isn't there?

The defenders of magic and the irrational don't have an answer for it that makes sense.

Unless 'I can't do it when you're all watching me' is a good answer

[jomifl]

So that's why some things work best with the light out.

[naomi24]

Jim, I have not claimed that water divining works, but because such a large number of people say it does, and since it allegedly involves both physical input, and physical reaction, I am curious to know how it works – if it works – and whether or not science has missed something, or is currently incapable of testing it. I am not so arrogant as to automatically assume that these people are delusional, mistaken, lying, stupid, or barking mad. Many of them, as we have seen here, are extremely intelligent – and therefore I remain curious. Having said that, it strikes me as rather strange that someone who loftily rants about the reliability of science, and in particular about the hard evidence it requires, has no difficulty whatsoever in speculating upon the existence of an invisible supernatural God for whose existence there is absolutely no evidence – anecdotal or otherwise – and has a great deal of difficulty in dismissing the notion. How do you square that with the evidence you, and science, require?

Jom, I’m not about to post my CV on here, but suffice to say that I did 5 years physics, 5 years chemistry, and 5 years biology at an excellent grammar school. True, I abandoned all three before A-level, so whilst I’m by no means an expert and don’t claim to be, I think it’s fair to say that I understand what science is and what it requires - and I would like to think the people I respect here give me credit for a little intelligence, at least.

[naomi24]

Jom, //So that's why some things work best with the light out.//

You mean like the double-slit experiment? A surprise to science – and not so long ago. ;o)

[jim360]

I thought I had recently made it clear that I was definitely atheist now. If I hadn't, then I may as well say it here again. Moreover I had lots of difficulty in squaring God with Science, always did have. If it appeared otherwise, then that was because it was almost as difficult to let go of the idea, because o what that seemed -- seems -- to mean about those people I know and love who still do believe in God. What it does mean is, I think, for me to sort out on my own. Not talking to them about it might be a good start.

At any rate I don't think it's entirely fair to say I had no difficulty in speculating about the existence of God, or some supernatural being. However I can understand that it may well have come across that way. In which case, my apologies for taking a while to reach the right conclusion. And also, while I am thinking about it, for shouting at you or arguing with you while still getting there. I suppose it did need someone to push me off that fence.

All of that aside. I don't think it is necessarily arrogant to assume that someone is mistaken when they observe something that is (almost certainly) impossible. It just seems common sense -- not least given the incredible number of documented reasons that make it reasonable to be wary of eyewitness evidence. Compare that with Scientific experimentalists, who probably spend half the time trying to get rid of, or at least account for and quantify, these sorts of error.

Probably one of the best experimental scientists, in my opinion, would be Robert Millikan, who spent years trying to prove Einstein's "light is a particle" theory wrong. To do this he set up a remarkably accurate experiment that ended up showing beyond all doubt that Einstein was right after all. He apparently took a while to get used to this idea, but at least managed to release his results without that sort of bias. Whether or not I will ever measure up to that remains to be seen. Probably not because I'd rather do theory.

[Khandro]

jomifl; re. //the putative sensitivity of the operator// what I mean is that a device be made that would allow the operator to hold the sleeves but which would ensure that they were always held absolutely vertical.