BS: Bogus science--warning signs

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:54 PM

Well said Amos, Occam would agree!

(psst - I think everyone else has dropped out by now)

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:51 PM

Right. I am just adding that there is a lot more to the process of "science" than the final propositions and theorems with which one predicts phenomena. And there are other tests, explicit and implicit. For example, a new scientific datum has to align with past scientific experience. And it should if possible not call on factors that are not needed, but cleave to elegance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:17 PM

I think Haldane meant the bald, global truism that Amos mentions. But by prediction, he probably didn't mean long-term, detailed accurate predictions (e.g. weather forecasts). Instead he meant that for a theory to be scientific, you must be able to fill in the blanks in the following sentence:

"If __________ is correct, then we should be able to find or demonstrate that ____________ exists or occurs."

for example,

"If Einsteins general theory of relativity is correct, then we should be able to detect gravitational frame-dragging."

Hmm. I suppose this is exactly the moving to the particular based on the general that misophist states above.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:19 AM

I think what he meant was that science is a method of moving from the general to the particular and for generating physical laws. One should also remember that he was trained as a chemist. I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:07 AM

"If you can't predict with it, it's not science".

That implies pretty baldly that if it's science you can predict with it. I'm not sure that's a global truism. 'Course this is awful broad dicta we're talking about, not exactly high precision statements.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 10:46 AM

If what you want is a simple, easy to use definition of science, JBS Haldane had a good one: "If you can't predict with it, it's not science". Of course, he also said "The Lord loved beetles more than anything else because he made more of them than anything else". That puts us in perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 11:53 AM

TIA:

That one is a gem. Thank you very much for the link to it. MAd emy day!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 08:45 AM

IMO, the best description of what makes good science is from Feynman.

Full text here:

Feynman on Science

If you read this, make sure you stick with it to the rats in a maze story (it's not too long).

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 08:19 AM

Man, Wolfgang, don't that story just sum it right up!! It's a daisy!

Thanks,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 04:46 AM

Iaccarion (and Amos) are right in reminding us that the foundation for modern science comes from Greece (or Greek living abroad like Archimedes) and from the Arab scholars like Alhazen who carried on or at the very least preserved the writings that otherwise might have been lost

The main reason in my eyes for the revolution during the Renaissance was the near complete reliance upon factual data (often gathered in experiments) for deciding questions. Scientists from then on have learned to ask their questions in a way that they can (in principle) be decided by data (experiments). Questions that cannot be decided by data are not tackled by science. One tricky (and the most creative) part of the method is to find a way to ask such questions. And a highlight in a scientific career is if you find a way to ask an experimentally decidable question on a field which until then was thought not to be amenable to science.

This revolution in thought was then (and still is today) difficult to accept for people who are not used to decide questions this way. Whenever scientific results have been in contradiction to beliefs or even tenets of faith there has been a clash. For instance, some aborigine in Australia whose religion tells them that they have been there right from the beginning of the world don't like scientist to tell them that this is not true.

This clash in world views has been described in a still amusing parody by Bacon:

HORSE'S TEETH

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among
the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For
thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the
ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and
ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this
region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day,
a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for
permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the
disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to
unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open
mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this,
their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth;
and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him,
hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely
Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and
unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of
the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of
peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the
problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth
of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same
writ down.

                (Francis Bacon, 1592)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 12:01 AM

Science is a cultural artifact. The following excerpt is from this article by Maurizio Iaccarino , worth chewing on for a bit.

A

---

Science and culture

Western science could learn a thing or two from the way science is done in other cultures

Maurizio Iaccarino

Maurizio Iaccarino is Secretary General of the UNESCO/ICSU World Conference on Science and at the Institute of Genetics and Biophysics, CNR, in Naples, Italy. e-mail: [e-mail]


What we understand today as being 'modern science' is in fact not that modern, but was born nearly half a millennium ago at the time of the Renaissance in Europe. But even if we think of great Renaissance thinkers, such as Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci or Sir Isaac Newton, as the first 'true scientists', we should not forget that all civilizations throughout history have produced and accumulated knowledge to understand and explain the world, a process that was often accompanied or stimulated by technological development. Indeed, the explosion of knowledge during the Renaissance was sparked by a reawakened interest in the writings of Greek, Roman and Arab philosophers and scholars—the word 'Renaissance' implying a renewed interest in classical culture and knowledge. But regardless of the various cultures and civilizations that have influenced science, what is common to all scientists is that they study natural phenomena, with an appropriate set of rules, to make generalizations and predictions about nature.

Science is part of culture, and how ... science is done largely depends on the culture in which it is practised

---

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

for a good lesson in how difficult even simple science is to get 'right', and why bogus science is so easy to pass of as reputable, try entering the phrase "wooden cutting boards" with the added term 'plastic' into Google........you will see article after article first noting, then debunking, then reinstating , the idea that wooden cutting boards are 'safer' than plastic regarding retention of bacteria.

There are just SO many varibles involved, and SO many preconceived opinions about what should be the right answer, that you can read for 20 minutes and still wonder if you know the answer.

I really appreciate TIA's post above, which noted that science (properly done) is self correcting....the difference being that many non-scientific areas (religion, psychic research..etc) works with very different rules, and tends to NOT look hard for evidence that would contradict their positions. Why?
   Well, it is my own very personal hunch that the more 'esoteric' disciplines are simply more interesting and fun for many. True, careful, disciplined science can be tedious and boring, whereas religion, astrology (and also psychic research and more mainstream science like looking for 'cold fusion') gets attention and wild speculation and provides a certain comfort & solace.

If I were able to start my education all over again, I'd like to study the thought processes, with emphasis on the human mind's ability to "Gerrymander" data and lie to itself about it's own motives and decision making. Perhaps there IS way somehow to help people remain open-minded, without sacrificing careful procedure and strict definitions of 'proof'.

(come to think of it, I suspect that there is a lot of equivocating over what "open-minded" means...does it mean "willing to suspend judgement", or "willing to accept stuff that is hard to prove scientifically"...or something else entirely?)

anyway, in spite of fighting a cold and not feeling like being in the middle of this thread constantly (as in 'cant think clearly), I am quite enjoying the comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM

The idea that motion created heat was also tested by measuring the temperature of water above and below a waterfall. The water had gained several degrees in the fall. Besides, not all friction produces sparks-rub your hands together. Heat? yes. Flame? no.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 04:34 AM

FL -

Junk science proof. Any grindstone that produces heat also produces sparks. Evidence that the phlogiston is there, just as in the flame when coal burns - it's just very dense. Proof denied.

At least that's what they said then, during the peer review.

"Common sense" is not the answer there.

For the most part, despite some valiant attempts at addressing the question, it is apparent that ours is a community that effectively excludes science and scientists. One or two contributors have come close enough to be highly suspect (and should guard their hindsides); but for the most part the discussion of science has foundered on the attempt to put it in non-scientific language. Unfortunately this doesn't work very well, and on the other side of it, scientific language would be largely incomprehensible to most of us.

Please continue - but be advised that the scientific jargon for what's happening here is "fighting feathers."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 12:12 AM

Excuse me, but I think phlogiston died out well before the nineteenth century. I could be misremembering, but didn't it give way first to the caloric theory and then later to the molecular motion basis of heat well before the Victorian era?

If I'm wrong I will be delighted to admit it. But I think it was Lavoisier who led themigration from phlogiston to caloric, around 1760-80. And Dalton, who led the path to the atomic theory of heat around , what--1830?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Grab
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 01:56 PM

Thanks for the info, FL. As you say, it just needs common sense. Therein rather lies the problem... ;-/

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 10:51 AM

Actually, Grab, phlogiston was disproved in a much easier fashion. The theory required heat to be the result of released phlogiston. A scientist (can't remember the name) showed that a grindstone produced heat from friction. This would make phlogiston a non-conserved substance (i.e., it could be made or destroyed), which diproved the theory. Just like falling speed being dependent on weight, phlogiston required only a little common sense to refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Grab
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 09:04 AM

Wysiwyg, just because you can observe movement of waves in water, there is no guarantee that "spiritual energy" does that too (or even that spiritual energy exists - you fancy tracing it down?)

To give a nice example, 19th century bogus science was very keen on the phlogiston, which they thought was some substance contained within things which caused them to burn. It's a nice theory. Oil burns, and once the oil's used up, the flame stops and there's no more oil left. Similarly, set fire to a bit of wood, and the wood burns. Eventually all that's left is ash, the wood stops burning, and there's less left than when we started, so the phlogiston has obviously all gone. Except we all know that it actually doesn't work like that, and when a piece of kit was invented to weigh all the results of the burning, including the carbon dioxide, scientists proved it.

I'm sure you see the point. The fact that one system works a particular way does *not* mean that anything else works the same way, no matter how intuitive it seems. In fact, as with phlogiston, the thing you're theorising about doesn't even have to exist.

As far as Guest 6:06's question of "Is a scientist's explanation of the universe superior to or more right than a theologian's or an existentialist philospher's?": Firstly, "superior to" is a loaded term. An explanation can either be closer to the truth or further from the truth, and the explanation that is closer to the truth is indeed "superior", but it doesn't make the scientist "superior" to the theologian or philosopher.

As regards whether a scientist's explanation is closer to the facts than a theologian's, I'd have to say yes, it is. We have some lovely data for this as well - think Copernicus and Galileo. Theologians derived an Earth-centric universe from 1000 years of Bible study. Scientists derived a Sun-centric solar system from a few tens of years study with telescopes. As regards the philosopher, I believe philosophy concerns itself with how people behave (or how they should behave) and makes no effort to explain the physical processes underlying that. The philosopher may therefore have the superior explanation for predicting crowd movement, but they cannot extrapolate that to movement of planets.

Also remember that philosophy is subject to the scientific method as well, insofar as philosophers are free to analyse their colleagues' theories, point out flaws, and come up with their own explanation which they think fits the facts better. In the same way as astronomy tries to rationalise what makes stars move, philosophy tries to rationalise what makes people move. So any philosophical theory is ultimately capable of being tested and found to be flawed when compared to the real world. Freud's philosophy of feminine sexual dysfunction is a good example of this, being comprehensively debunked by Hite and others by following the scientific method.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 08:46 AM

freudulent science

An anecdote to that slip.
One day, Sigmund F, listened to a talk by a young colleague and he later went to him and said: "A very fine talk, but I heard you mispronounce my name as 'Sigmund Fraud': I've been greatly abused by that slip."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM

Do they do double-double-blind experiments? That would be where the results included some from people getting placebos, where they (and the administrators)
believed it was the real stuff, and others where it was the real stuff, but everyone thought it wasn't? (McGrath)
Yes, they do, though less often than the usual placebo control experiments. If in such a group (they believe they get a placebos but get the 'real thing', whatever that is in that context) the effect is larger that in the usual placebo control group that is taken as a strong indication that the effect is more than mere placebo action.

Troll, tell me more about this 11-year-old girl's test. I haven't heard about it.. (Mark Cohen)
If I am not mistaken this questions has not been answered yet: the original article was Emily Rosa, et al., "A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch." The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol 279, #13, 1998-APR-1

I have the impression that some of you don't see the within-science focus of Park's argument. It is true, he is also concerned about what he terms pseudoscience and junk science. These happen outside of science and use scientific jargon with little or no evidence. He is more concerned with what he terms pathological science (and freudulent science) when within science researchers "are inclined to see what they expect to see" and fool themselves.

Nobody (well, nearly) within science is seriously concerned about crackpots who think that UFOs come from the inner of the earth controlled by still surviving Nazis or other stuff. The real concern starts when something within science goes wrong (N-rays, polywater, cold fusion,...) and large amounts of money and brain power are spent uselessly.

Park has provided a useful detection kit for bad science (and, as a collateral benefit, for pseudoscience as well) and bad science includes a couple of things you have mentioned.

It's a method of gaining knowledge, like 'personal experience' is, just a bit more reliable than that.

And, since there are so many new things discovered by science, any scientist claiming that things do not exist until they can be scientifically proven would only earn the laughter of her colleagues. Usually, most scientists subscribe to the idea that there is an outside real world that also exists even if we do not think about it...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: TIA
Date: 22 Apr 03 - 08:29 AM

Oh my, so much to respond to here.

Difference between religion and science: science is self-correcting. Someone pointed out above that scientists held as fact many nutty notions over the years - true, but what ultimately proved them nutty was science done by other scientists! That's the way science works. Nothing is held sacred. Everything is open to doubt. A wise person (Feynman?) said "all good scientific theories are born scorned and die disproven".

True scientists do not reflexively defend their cozy niches: there is no surer route to fame (and more importantly funding!) than overturning an established theory or proving the existence of a previously unkown phenomenon. But since science is competetive and nothing is believed based only on claims, you've got to demonstrate the phenomenon, and other people at other places have to be able to reproduce it.

Science cannot say anything about non-testable (non-falsifiable) claims or ideas. So science and religion often deal with separate issues (Stephen Jay Gould called this "non-overlapping magisteria"). some religious claims are testable, and this is where the sparks fly!

I could listen to others (and expound myself) on this one all day. Great thread Bill D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 11:02 AM

Perhaps part of the problem here has been caused by "false-ifyability" (SP?). Most researchers won't comment on any question that isn't falsifyible. ie. able to be presented in a form that is capable of being proven false. This tends to upset the psychics and that ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 11:01 AM

Is a scientist's explanation of the universe superior to or more right than a theologian's or an existentialist philospher's?

As a matter of fact, yes. Explanations of domains of existence are presentations of data. The data is workable to the degree it correpsonds with the territory. It is unworkablke to the degree it calls up territory that isn't there, inserts arbitraries, fails to predict what can be found in the territory, or adds complexity that is unnecessary to the explanation. Injecting opinions into a body of data makes it more complex.

Finally, data is as valuable as it is useful in some sphere, whether practical or aesthetic. Large chunks of authoritarian data have been handed down through the centuries by theologians which have no real use. Existential philosophers are useful in unseating arbitrary or authoritarian moral codes, but not too much beyond that.

Newton's first three laws of motion, incomplete though they were, have produced more human benefit than all of Camus and Sartre together.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: pavane
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 09:36 AM

The scientific method is a well-established method for examining hypotheses with a view to selecting the most likely explanation which fits the currently known facts.

It should NOT automatically reject anything, and new evidence should always result in a review. There are rules to the game!

Science should NOT be confused with technology, which is the practical application of the results of the method.

Theory of gravity (Newton, Einstein or quantum/superstring) = science
Man on the moon = technology

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 11:55 PM

I think shooting Wolfram's editor might involve suicide on Wolfram's part. His book is published through his own publishing company so there was no one in a position to advise him. There are several more interesting proposals than Wolfram's for the origin of our universe and several of them require a random quantum gravitational event to kick off the process.

Misophist, Bill said a lot of things, some of which got him in trouble with Pope John XXII resulting in his excommunication.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 10:56 PM

Mark Clark:

Thanks. I could have sworn Bill said "Entiae non sunt multiplicandur."

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Skeptic
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 10:42 PM

GGuest,

If you are trying to say that there are people who claim to be skeptics and aren't, then we have no disagreement. Are you attacking them or the idea of skepticism itself?

If the idea, the goal (for want of a better word)is to look at the idea being proposed in a fairly specific way. There is (or should be) no hidden agenda - just a desire to determine whether the idea stands on it's on merits (generally as it relates to the scientific method and the body of knowledge generate by same) or not. When it moves beyond that, you edge over into show biz where another logical fallacy comes in to play - that of style over substance.


People who claim to be skeptics and aim their attack at the individual rather than the claim may call themselves skeptics but clearly aren't. Their claim, to restate, invalidates them.

Now this may be purely a matter of semantics but reading (and re-reading) it's not entirely clear what point you want to make and about who you are making them.

My confusion may come because, to me, critical thinking and skepticism are the same thing. You seem to feel that if someone claims to be a skeptic, then they are one, despite evidence to the contrary? Skepticism questions (or should) everything, including its own nature.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 01:42 AM

There is a factual issue with measurement vis-a-vis existence, Peg, but it has to do with those phenomena that occur ouside the realm of normal, measurable event-time. How long does an idea take? How wide is a vision? How many people does a new idea reach in the first day of its life? On how many frequencies? Where is a creative postulated truth located?

Lots of problems with measurement in these realms, and yet, according to some schools of thought, these are the very well-springs of hypotheses, theories, new experimental schema, and new paradigms.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 01:10 AM

Skeptic, at the neighborhood intersection of free and critical thinking, I find the skeptic movement to be the bully of the block.

Why are skeptics so desperate to prove people they disagree with wrong, anyway? The discipline of science hasn't exactly cornered the market on truth, much less fact.

I think the reason why an entire industry of professional skeptics has cropped up in the last decade or so, is to protect the authority of the political and corporate elite, plain and simple. This whole skeptic dynamic operates exactly like Fox News and right wing talk radio, and uses the very same tactics to discredit "the enemy". Skeptic histrionics are not my idea of "fair and balanced" critical, intellectual thought--far from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 12:56 AM

"...proposes that only a small number of simple rules are needed..."

Which is what left him wide open for parody and disdain. Only a small number of rules are needed to explain the universe, but he took 1200 pages to say it?

I mean COME ON! 1200 pages? His editor should have been shot.

How can anyone seriously suggest that a man who writes a book that is 1200 pages long, is a master of critical thinking? A master of verbal diarrhea is more like it.

I'll wait for the abridged version on tape, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 Apr 03 - 12:17 AM

GUEST 19 Apr 03 - 06:52, Thanks for the entertaining spoof of Wolfram, I enjoyed it. I missed the first part of the Krulwich interview but what I got was that “A New Kind of Science” proposes that only a small number of simple rules are needed to randomly generate the entire universe as we know it. I don't know whether Wolfram's thesis is accepted in academic circles—he seems to have violated the first of Park's seven indicators at a minimum—but the notion isn't much stranger than what is canonical.

      - Mark

            “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Skeptic
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 11:56 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:52 PM

Ebbie-I've done that many times, doing mirroring exercises, and never felt a thing. If you do, it could be psychosomatic, or there could be a real force at work-we don't know, and I refuse to accept the existence of something that can neither be rationally explained nor demonstrated to me. At the moment, therapeutic touch is something of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:14 PM

This is a fascinating thread. Thanks, guys.

"I believe most of the changes in scientific conclusions over the years have come about because of new evidence and not because people have made errors in evaluating previously available evidence." Jeri Agreed. However, the LAST word is a difficult concept.

"Y'all, I think smoking cigarettes has a lot to do with ulcers. Look into it if you are concerned about ulcers." Crazy Little Woman. Agreed, partly. I was a smoker; I developed an ulcer. My mother never smoked a day in her life; she had to have part of her ulcer-raddled stomach removed.

"The reason most people, including myself, are hesitant to accept the idea of "spiritual energy" is that there have been no reliable experiments showing its source, its medium of travel, or its method of interaction. Forum Lurker Look to the hands, Forum Lurker. There's an easy way to establish that there are some kinds of energy we have not accepted. Have someone hold up his/her hand and you match the action, palm to palm, from a few feet away. You will very soon discover that you feel a definite heat. Now back off, and do it again. A friend and I discovered we could 'feel' each other's hands from across the room.

"I know how hypnosis 'can' cause a blister to form on a person's arm if they are convinced they have been touched by a hot poker instead of a stick, and I know how fasting in the desert can cause the mind to KNOW it has seen visions.....and I also am sure that there is much yet to discover about the universe. Bill D That reminds me of reading: "After a spouse's or other dear one's death, a commonly reported hallucination is hearing the other's voice or catching a glimpse of the other." My question: If it's so "commonly reported", who is to say it's an hallucination?

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

"It is the belief in the supremacy of scientific rationalism and private corporate governance, that is the placebo we've been given, and swallowed hook, line, and sinker as a society." Guest I tend to agree, Guest. Reminds me of when my mother used to deplore the 'new age' thinking that goes beyond or outside the boundaries of what she could accept. She felt that it was a 'sign of the times' and said it was an example of what the Bible warned against, that there would be deceivers and deceptions. I asked her once how she could be sure that it was not instead an example of something else the Bible prophesied (sp?), that there will be dreamers and those who see visions. How could she be sure that the last 500 years were not the falling off years and these were not the rebirth of spirituality?

""Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsh," Lurker's Assistant Agreed. They are fascinating books. I don't understand how the phenomenon works, LA, but there appears to be some element, whether it's spirit or wishful deluded thinking, that seems to put the 'still' person into a connection beyond. I'd like to hear from others who have done it. And I'd suggest that those who are not willing to try it hold off and let others describe it. :)

Rick, I would love to hear more discussion on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:52 PM

Yeah, y'all might want to travel on over here, too (meant strictly as some gentle funnin' there Mark):

That fancy ass science book Mark was talking about reviewed here

Fractals are way cooler than cellular automatons IMO, and I like them best. Here is a lovely one (hope this works):

Lovely fractals

I think it is important to remember that M C Escher had no formal training in math or science, yet he continues to blow the minds of mathematicians and scientists both, even today. Here is one of my favorite Escher pieces:

The Second Day of Creation

Just makes you think. Another book I like to recommend for folks who like books that just make them think (rather than insist the universe is THEIR WAY) is one by a couple of new agey 'new science' sorts of academic guys, called "Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Spiritual Wisdom from the Science of Change". I loved it. It's by John Briggs (an English prof) and F. David Peat (a PhD in physics from University of Liverpool). The latter even has a website:

'nother one of them 'New Science' kinds of guys

These days, I also am recommending "Goddess of the Americas: Writings on the Virgin of Guadalupe" edited by Ana Castillo. Another one of thos "just makes you think" sorts of books. Here is one little poetic piece from it, for the season, by Miriam Sagan (a poet, no relation):

Passover

Jews must be everywhere
Even in La Puebla, New Mexico
Where we pass Good Friday pilgrims
Wearing Walkmans
Dusty along the highway.
It's Shabbos, the two sets of candles
Adorn the tables
Set with sea shells
Seder means: the order
In which things happen
Egypt means: narrows
For plagues we dip our fingers in the wine
Hail kills your tomato plants
You quarrel
With a neighbor about a wall
A friend is unexpectedly in jail
Baby cries in the emergency room
Homeless men sleep in the arroyo
Stumble across Paseo to the liquor store
So drink four cups of wine
It's only the second time this year
Jews must get drunk
And lie down with our shoes off
On comfortable couches.
The children are playing in the dusk
My daughter feeds a large white horse
A bunch of golden apples
Desert smells like the sea
Of sand and wind and something else
Clean, and scoured
Miriam's Well
Springs within
Green oasis that must
Reappear within our hearts
Voices singing slightly off-key
This source of water
Follows us
Despite our exile, wandering.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,Lurker's assistant
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:47 PM

Ah, well, you could benefit by reading "Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsh, Forum Lurker. It would neatly and sensibly answer every question you have posed or suggested...and not in any way invalidate science or common sense while doing it. Check your local bookstore or library, and try volume 1 first. If you don't, don't blame me for not trying.

It's all a question of your own free will. You can use it any way you want to...if you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:18 PM

GUEST of 6:06-An explanation of the universe is better if it is more likely to be true. I don't know about you, but I find it easier to reconcile string theory, bizarre as it might be at times, than the notion that some omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity created the universe, then allowed or caused it to become filled with suffering. Existentialism doesn't even have a point as far as I can see; if I feel good and bad emotions as a result of actions that take place in the world, what does it matter whether, in some abstraction of the universe, those actions "really" occurred?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:15 PM

You're missing the point, guest whichever- science is a method, not an 'explanation'. And yes, not all methods are equally valid, or conclusions equally verifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:06 PM

Chaos theory, control theory, cellular automata, complexity theory...all are a science believer's ways of attempting to explain why THEIR way of imposing order on our chaos. Are we to accept that a scientist's explanation of the universe is superior to an anthropologist's or historian's way of imposing order on our chaos through their studies?

Is a scientist's explanation of the universe superior to or more right than a theologian's or an existentialist philospher's?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:00 PM

In addition to the Sagan book, grab a copy of

Michael Shermer'sThe Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense Oxford, 2001.

Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man W.W. Norton, 1996

THIS SITE may be of interest as well.

Have fun-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 06:00 PM

Fred Miller:

You are correct, with one exception. Quantum theory works statistically. If there's a cause and effect relationship, no one's found it yet. That's what Einstein meant when he said 'I don't believe God plays dice with the universe'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:45 PM

As I'm composing this post, I'm also watching Robert Krulwich interview Stephen Wolfram on C-SPAN2. Dr. Wolfram is discussing his newest book “A New Kind of Science.” I think C-SPAN archives these programs if you'd like to watch later. I can see I'm going to have to buy a copy of this book.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Sam L
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

An experiment can be repeated in respect to the factors one considers significant, beforehand, so a repetition at another time and place is only provisionally the same. Another way of doubting is to ask how many repetitions of an experiment are necesary to prove a cause and effect relationship.

All of science depends on the idea of cause and effect, but that principle itself can't be tested, since you would have to start at the beginning of time and test until the end.

   The ancient Greeks used paralax to test whether the earth moved in space, and found that it didn't. It was a valid experiment. The shifts were too tiny, and the Greeks could not imagine themselves so tiny in a universe so vast.

It's fun to doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Sometimes you can solve a mystery simply by looking HARD at a person's eyes when they're explaining something.

Two of the most entertaining mystery/hoax/whatevers of my lifetime have been the Kennedy assasination and the alien "crash" at Roswell N.M.

Both have been the subject of numerous books, pamphlets, documentaries, and never-ending speculation. In both situations, the "true believers" accuse the Government of massive cover-ups, and the rest paint the "true believers as nutbars and star trek freaks! Almost no one is un-opinionated in these issues.

I love this kind of thing the way some folks love crossword puzzles....because I don't CARE which side is right. I'm naturally curious, and I have no hidden agenda (that I know of), so all the reading and "figuring" was simply fun.

A couple of incidents happened in the last five years or so that really swung me around to a particular point of view though, and since I'm such a strong believer in the adage that "most people can't lie convincingly on TV"......but they seldom get caught.

I mean, did ANYONE believe Bill Clinton's sexual denials, or think that George Bush really understood complex politics? Not too many I think.

So when the American military (was it the Air Force?) FINALLY decided to have their well-briefed expert face the press, in order to put the whole "Roswell thing" to rest........and the FIRST question was pertaining to

Area 51

The Military guy said "What's that? I'm not familiar with that term".

Game, set and match. The military sure IS familar with that term (whether they believe it exists or not) and their spokesman knew he'd blown it VERY early into the press conference. I guess he just thought it would take a bit for the Press to get warmed up, and they caught him off guard. For about twenty seconds he looked devastated, and then recovered.......but I'm sure that SOME folks picked up on it. What happened, we'll probably never know.....but SOMETHING happened.

Same with the Kennedy/Warren Commision stuff. I saw both Gerald Ford and Arlen Spector on the Larry King show, and among the softball questions were a couple to each about the truthfulness of the Warren report. Ford brushed off one of the most hotly argued issues in the country's history with barely a shrug and a chuckle. ("Those whacky conspiracy theorists eh"?)

Spector, on HIS appearance, never even TRIED to explain (to a whole new generation) his completely bogus "magic bullet" theory. Larry never pushed him at all. It was in their eyes....there was SOME agreement. Once again, I still don't know what happened...but it was more than we were told.

The ultimate 'junk science', watchin' 'em closely.....but I like it.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:40 PM

Ah, Carl Sagan, the great skeptic missionary cult's greatest evangelizer.

I'm glad y'all keep bringing the Billy Graham of the pop science world into the conversation, because it was people just like Carl Sagan the saying "When science ignores history, the result is usually disastrous." was coined to describe.

Take the great skeptic missionary cult's obsession with "debunking" astrology, for instance, while leaving his own "superstitious" religion (Judaism) out of the equation? Why is the mythology attached to the heavens in need of debunking, but the mythology of religion not? Carl Sagan surely had his own mythology of the heavens as an astronomer. And part of that mythology is rooted in a profound denial in his science's roots in what we erroneously call "astrology" today.

Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is the bible for the missionary nutcases I describe above. For a more balanced view, celtaddict, I suggest you try reading Anthony Aveni's "Conversing with the Planets: How Science and Myth Invented the Cosmos" and his "Skywatchers, Shamans and Kings: Astronomy and the Archaeology of Power". He is an extremely popular academic too--an anthropologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,celtaddict
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:04 PM

Carl Sagan: Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST,celtaddict
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 05:00 PM

The late great Carl Sagan wrote an excellent article discussing how one who lacks a background in a particular science can still apply rigorous thinking to recognize what was probably valid and what was not. There are of course many phenomena that fall outside the realm of "science" but for analyzing the areas that lend themselves to study by scientific method, his method made great sense.
It was probably in his last book "Small Blue Dot" but I will check when I am home.

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:25 PM

"...in material science it is a good test to require that the same experiment can be done with the same results in a different place and time by different people (of course that means it really is NOT the same experiment, obviously, but we'll over look that part)"

Amos, why should anyone overlook the fact that one of the primary tenets of "provable" science is fallible?

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:19 PM

Guest:

The sort of science which Gardner and company promote is extremely hard science; for example this notion that being able to improve the signal to noise ratio is a requirement is not part of traditional scientific method, which calls only for replicability and empircal verification by others -- in material science it is a good test to require that the same experiment can be done with the same results in a different place and time by different people (of course that means it really is NOT the same experiment, obviously, but we'll over look that part).

While this is fine for material science it is absolutely absurd to try to impose these standards on a field of phenomena as little understood as life, awareness, and "para"psychological things. It is a self-defeating, self-referential loop that essentially argues that all phenomena of life are molecular, therefore awareness is molecular, and all molecular phenomena are replicable and therefore the standards of physics experiments apply to experiements in -- for example -- remote viewing or precognition. The discontinuity in the phenomena sets are just not taken into account.

This sort of steam-roller cogntiive process is also typical of knee-jerk thinking at both ends of the political spectrum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bogus science--warning signs
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

And BTW, I bring up this "leader" of the missionary cult of the skeptic movement, because it is my belief that psychology is probably the biggest pseudoscience of them all.