Guest

Your comment
"I find the professional skeptic types to be pretty close minded and generally conservative"

brings to mind a comment I made on a similar thread a few years back which is to suggest that you need to start hanging around with a better class of skeptics.

The nuclear power illustration seems to validate my suggestion. Scientists were/are very aware of the dangers of nuclear power. Some of them chose, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, make the claims you mentioned. The media (not exactly a credible source for the current state of science at any time) followed the approved "line'

Even competent scientists make errors. Look at Edward Teller and the silliness of the nuclear powered laser proposed for Reagan's SDI. It wasn't that good a theory to begin with and Teller greatly underestimated the engineering obstacles (he had a history of doing that). After $30 billion dollars that was demonstrated although a number of scientists had been making the claim all along. As the whole thing was classified, the truth came out years later. I believe the government built Dr. Teller a new Laboratory as a reward. Which speaks to human nature. The failure was not of science but of individuals.

The core problem for both sides seems to me to be that the definition of just what "science" is and isn't clearly understood by scientists themselves, let alone the rest of us.

The repeated attack of "skeptical missionaries" seems to be both diversionary and a special case of ad hominem attack. And while groups like CSICOP do rely on scienctific methodology, they are hardly the guardians of the gate. I think you'll find that the statictical studies were actually meta-statistical studies that concluded that scientific validation of ESP had not been demonstrated by a number of studies. The conclusion that ESP doesn't exist has not been proven. (After all how do you ever really prove a negative?).

I tend to agree with you about Psychology. At least the non-clinically based kind.

Peg

'The notion that something does not exist until it can be scientifically "proven" is, when you think about it for a moment, preposterous..."


It certainly is and most scientists I know would agree. As one commented, way back in the 20's when quantum mechanics was in its infancy, the theory required that certain quantum particles had to exist. They were not detected until the late 30's and their existence did a lot to validate the theory.

On the other hand, as Amos says, there is the possibility of a greater reality, beyond science. There may be. If so, it is outside the rules of science and trying to reconcile the two is probably futile.

There are some things that science accepts as real, as fact, that cannot be proven directly but whose existence can be inferred based on indirect evidence, a predictive theory that explains facts that are known, that is consistent with what is known about other branches of science.

Do you really know any scientists who don't think emotions are real? I suppose such do exist but doubt that belief is rooted in science. It suggests a different agenda..

Raedwulf

"The problem with science is that it's replaced religion."

Are you sure you (and maybe some others) aren't mixing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism?

Science may have indeed become some people's religion but that speaks to human nature rather than to science. Just as the refusal of scientists to accept new ideas, to break out of the existing paradigm does. Physics had a hard time accepting chaos theory (in part because the early developers were mathematicians. That the theory explained more than a few phenomena didn't seem to matter. Eventually the preponderance of evidence mounted to the point that most scientists accept it.

"Just because you can't measure it, don't mean it ain't there!"

As a practicing skeptic I've also learned that it there is an absolute refusal to try and "measure" it, (in the sense of trying to see how it fits in with all the other things we know- or think we know anyway) there is likewise a pretty high probability that it ain't there.

The problem seems to be to define just what science is. And isn't. Clearly there is a strong human tendency preserve a cherished body of knowledge and a concomitant reluctance to embrace ideas from the "tree shakers".

Yet the burden would seem to be on the "tree shakers" (assuming they want to play in the methodological sandbox) to demonstrate their claims, not only within the specific area but in the larger body of scientific knowledge. As Carl Sagan suggested, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. From those making the claim.

Well, I seemed to have jumped around more than I meant so if confused who asserted what, my apologies in advance.

Regards

John