Scienctific stereotypes and pseudoscience

[TZ]

Lately, there has been a lot of threads concerning what I would dub "pseudoscience" (ESP, extra-terrestial visits/UFO ghosts. etc)
and in every thread the same old tired stereotypes of scientists/rationalists/skeptics keep coming up. I am tired of them. I thought I would address a few of them. I have always been aggravated by generalities especially those based in misconceptions

1) Scientists are closed minded. Not true for the most part. Scientists are by nature skeptical of data that has not been rigorously tested through the scientific method. And its not in their training (or nature) to accept something as the truth merely because someone SAYS its true. Thats why so many of us ask for peer-reviewed data. To us, thats the best way to evaluate a claim or theory. Observational evidence, while it has its place, is not good proof--ask anyone involved in court cases..forensic evidence is considered superior to eyewitness in some ways. For example--the Beltway snipers in 2002...The witnesses were all "sure" that a white box truck was involved. One person had seen it at one seen and so people looked for that and overlooked the real vehicle--a maroon Chevy Caprice. A LOT different. So can you understand why scientists aren't going to take a bunch of blurry photos and questionable eyewitness accounts as being "the truth"?
Have I met dogmatic scientists? Sure, but for the most part most scientists are willing when the data is shoved in their face to accept new paradigms which leads to steeotype number two..
2) Science is a religion/faith based/afraid of anything that challanges their beleifs.No, I would argue that is true of religion which by definition is faith based. Scientists however observe the known world and find that patterns exist (when I say patterns I mean principles of science like photosynthesis, cellular respirataion, law of gravity, etc). When something is presented that goes outside of the bounds of those observed principles scientists are extremely skeptical. A lot of "inventions" or "devices" that are talked about here are usually totally unproven scientifically, yet there are too many people who believe based on the claims of the inventor and their "believers" that they are the next big thing. Maybe after rigorous scientific testing the "devices" might have merit but that needs to be seen. The example I have seen is multiple postings about a device that claims it can eliminate malignant tumors based on vibrations. Fine, lets see the studies that prove that out..in the appropriate physiology..but it does fly in the face of accepted biology. Yet its hailed as "the cure for cancer" and gets raves while I post about something much more promising and based on sound science of using viruses to target and destroy cancer tumors gets ignored by many of the same people who hail the unproven device as "the cure".
3) Scientists who dispute "common wisdom" must have an agenda..ie are shills in the pay of someone, aren't true progressives, are secret agents for the right etc...Sometimes things that are widely held beliefs aren't scientifically accurate. The old chestnut that anything natural must be good and science goes agaisnt nature is the big one in my mind. How many natural things can kill us in truly horrendous ways? Ebola is natural. Rattlesnake venom is natural. Hell predators like sharks are natural. Nature is not pretty. But sometimes the things that people think are "unnatural" aren't even that. Take vaccines..which have been labelled by some as "chemicals". No. They are modified microorganisms. Sometimes they are simply microorganisms that have been heat killed..Vaccines basically expose us to the pathogen we are trying to protect agaisnt in a way that causes minimal sickness..vaccines work WITH the immune system. What is more natural than that? Unless of course you think that no intervention in the saving of lives should ever be done..that we should just let "nature" take its own course? Oh and those who think all herbs are natural..They are just as much "chemicals" as anything in modern meds (vinegar is acetic acid for example). And some of these so called natural cures are EXTEMELY DANGEROUS. Laetrile for example is promoted as a treatment for cancer...When it really is a compound with CYANIDE in it. Digitalis (fox glove) in very small doses can be good for the heart but in larger doses is deadly to humans....
Finally not so much a stereotype as another way that people try to justify pseudoscience is the "statistically significant" findings that are often pushed as proof of something. So feeding a rat compund x causes the cancer risk to double..Sounds bad right? Well when you look at the statistics you see that the risk jumps from .5% to 1%. A big jump statistically perhaps but really insignificant in terms of how much of a risk it is. This type of fear mongering seems to happen all the time here...And we pretty much object to the admin manipulating us through the use of fear (terrorism) so why is okay for us to do the same thing to others?
Also I have had people push studies on me as proof of ESP where the success rates were statistically significant from random...the success percentages were 20-40% for the most part. To which I must say: Would anyone go to a doctor that was only right 30-40% percent of the time? I don't think so. Can you imagine the outcry if the FDA approved a drug that was only effective 30-40% of the time.....Critical thinking skills are very important and too many people seem to not only lack them but attack those who are trying to apply them
As someone who cares passionately about science, rationality and of course the future of this country, I thought it was important to share my POV on this. I will get off my soapbox now...

[alarimer]

1. Thank you. I've been wanting to do this for some time.

I would also add small lesson on statistics or probability. When people talk about smoking and cancer, for example, they often claim that their grandmother smoked for 90 years and did get lung cancer; therefore smoking must not cause cancer. Well, there is a difference between a sample and a population. Smoking does increase the RISK for certain diseases but it does not mean that everyone who smokes will get cancer. Just as not everyone who eats bacon a lot will die of heart disease.

Statistical significance does not always equal biological significance. I had a stat professor who jokingly referred to a company he wanted to form called "Small P-values are Us", meaning, I guess, that he could get you a statistically significant finding for whatever you wanted. I've often been skeptical of claims in the media that substance X (say, cell phones) causes cancer. Frankly there is just not enough evidence to say so. The studies that have claimed so are deeply flawed. You can't really say what causes any one case of cancer.

I stand by the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I used this in reference to a post criticizing James Randi for the standards he uses in his million-dollar prize contest. Those standards are not onerous and the fact that no one who enters the contest meets the standards shows that paranormal claims do not stand up to the standards of scientific proof.

[ClintonTyree]

83. Took the words right out of my mouth....

I was going to bring up Randi's million dollar challenge but you beat me to it. I'm with Randi. There is nothing supernatural in this world. My money is on Science until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that paranormal or supernatural phenomenon exist. So far, everyone has fallen short in that challenge.

Great post, turtlensue. Science needs to be periodically defended from the ubiquitous snake-oil salesmen among us. Oddly enough, it always seems there's some monetary gain associated with these charlatans hawking their paranormal and supernatural wares. Go figure!

[JHB]

133. If paranormal/supernatural phenomena were proven to exist...

...my money would still be on science, because those subjects would then become science. The definition of "what is scientific" would expand to include those proven things.

...Which is another point that belies the "close minded skeptic" stereotype: for every intractible fuddy-duddy "scientist" there'd be a thousand young turk scientists who'd be chomping at the bit to explore those whole new fields of knowledge.

[JDPriestly]

138. This is a good point.

I have had experiences that cannot be explained. It does not mean that I did not have the experiences. It just means that we don't have the understanding to explain them. When I have an experience myself that is not yet understood, I believe what I personally experienced. But I do not expect other people to believe what I personally experienced. In other words, I do not expect other people to take my word for the personal experience. That does not mean that I did not have it. It just means that I cannot prove to other people whether or not I had it.

[Basileus Basileon]

2. K&R

[Beelzebud]

3. K&R. The "war on science" doesn't just come from the right-wing or christian fundys.

I see too much mystical thinking in every progressive site I visit. It's disturbing how many Americans seem willing to give up rational thought, for elixers, cure-alls, and just straight up bullshit.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Happy to K and R. nt

[dropkickpa]

5. K & R

Gullibility is one of the great failings of "progressive" minds today. Being so desparate for something to back up paranoia that ANYTHING is acceptable is the sign of a closed mind. It's been made up long ago and only those things, no matter how silly, that agree with that locked-in mindset are acceptable, no matter what overwhelming evidence there is to the contrary. Sounds very unprogressive, to me.

[LeftishBrit]

6. k&r!

Great post!

Other misconceptions include (a) that scientists think they know EVERYTHING - if they did, their work would be redundant as everything would be known already; (b) that if scientists don't know everything/ doctors can't cure everything, it means that their work is worthless - i.e. it's all or nothing; (c) scientists are a nice little cozy close-knit group who band together against the rest of the world, and have ONE view which they won't allow to be challenged - in fact, it's generally to the advantage of scientists to challenge the views of other scientists, and there is ruthless competition both between individuals and between theories.

[TheWraith]

7. Kicked and recommended.

The enthusiasm for pseudoscience and the inability to make the distinction irritates me, too.

[independentpiney]

8. k&r n/t

[mike_c]

9. recommended....

Excellent post!

[Annces]

10. Science has its place

However it is extremely limited and can be limiting.

[slowry]

14. How is it limited? Limiting?

Are you going to say "science can only allow us to learn about things we are able to perceive"? Oh, how limited! It can only allow us to learn about anything and everything that could possibly affect us.

Limiting?



"Science" is just using your eyes, ears, hands, nose, tongue, and brain (both dry logical thoughts, and disconnected random imagination have their place), to learn about anything that is real, and imagine what might be.

[Blashyrkh]

34. There's a difference between "science" and the "the scientific community".

To a point, I believe both religionists and scientists have vested interests in their fields and the truth of existence and the nature of reality is weirder than both put together.

[slowry]

41. Finish this sentence, please...

"Scientists* have a vested interest in hiding, obscuring, ignoring, or kidding themselves about the truth of existence and the nature of reality because..."

* I didn't realize "scientists" were such a hivemind. Kudos to the creationists and aura wipers for bringing this to light!

[sojourner]

68. ...like all of us they have a need for "certainty"

and they make their living by striving for success (acknowledgement by their peers) within the present scientific paradigm -- perhaps it would be worthwhile to revisit Kuhn vs Popper in this regard?

[Blashyrkh]

157. I use scientists like people use politicians.

Not all scientists are flakes. Not all politicians are dishonest pieces of shit.

Or are you going to deny that SOME scientists who are interested in maintaining a status quo? Zahi Hawass is a prime example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahi_Hawass . He has a reputation for saying whatever needs to be said in order to maintain the facade of "accepted" Egyptian history.

Anyways, to answer the question, simply because if humanity knew the truth about existence and the nature of reality, our "jobs", our "families", our "possessions", our "lives" would be meaningless. I believe the human mind is capable of much more than we consider now. I believe ESP, telekinesis and other mental powers can be learnt as they are inherent abilities in humans, just as breathing or locomotion is. Humans would never settle for 9-5 jobs, would never settle for living the existence we do, if we could reach for anything better.

[slowry]

158. Weird, I find there's a fucking staggering amount to reach for, without fantasies such as ESP. n/t

[Blashyrkh]

159. Like what? A bigger house? God? Fuck God. We *ARE* gods.

[slowry]

160. wtf? Easy there, Fight Club. Gods of what? One grain of sand?

If you can't find anything interesting to pursue in science, art, etc., you're a truly sad individual. One wouldn't need ESP to know there's nothing but oatmeal between your ears.

[Blashyrkh]

166. No, no, no, you misunderstand.

I believe fully in exploring human existence through art, music, science and other creative ventures. I have a keen interest in both astronomy and cosmology.

I have a problem when science is held in equal reverance to religion by its respective followers. You're telling me, quite confidently that ESP does not exist? Why? Because "science" says so? That's as stupid as claiming someone existed 2000 years ago because "religion" says so.

I believe in the existence of ESP because I believe the human mind, at its highest potential, is capable of anything it conceives. That's why we are gods.

[slowry]

169. 'Because "science" says so?'

No, because there's no real evidence of it.

"Science" doesn't say "there is no such thing as ESP". Scientific consensus would be that there's no evidence for it, just as there's no evidence for planets being moved by angels flapping their wings. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand here. There is no conspiracy, conscious or unconscious, to hide the existence of ESP; there's just no reason for anyone to believe it's real, unless they're trying to sell something, or fill some void in their lives.

[Blashyrkh]

170. Interesting that members of the parapsychology community disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception#S...

Scientific investigation of ESP

The scientific field which investigates psi phenomena such as ESP is called parapsychology. The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically.<18><5><19>

18 - http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview By Eberhard Bauer, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, in the European Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 5, 141-166, Retrieved February 9, 2007

5 - a b c d The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean I. Radin Harper Edge, ISBN 0-06-251502-0

19 - http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#20 What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi? Retrieved January 31, 2007

I also included the specific references for you to read up on.

From the link in 19.

What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi?
To be precise, when we say that "X exists," we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects.

With this in mind, ESP exists, precognition exists, telepathy exists, and PK exists. ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials, but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts, may be stronger yet.

Or are we all crackpots? Or are you someone who has just accepted what they've been told and never questioned or even thought about it?

[slowry]

171. Oh me, oh my n/t

[skepticscott]

176. That's a shocker!

So the people who have spent their careers trying to show that psi phenomenon are real think that psi phenomenon are real? Well, I guess that settles it then! I guess we should have believed the tobacco companies when they told us that all the scientific evidence proved that cigarettes were perfectly safe and the oil companies when they told us that global warming was a myth.

[Blashyrkh]

177. Do you consider all paranormal phernomena forgeries, or just psi?

[skepticscott]

180. Did I use the word forgeries?

What is it with the paranormal woo-wooers on this thread? Their favorite rhetorical tactic seems to be to attribute things to others that they never, in fact, said. But the answer is no, I don't consider all psi research to be fraudulent and all claims of paranormal phenomenon to be doctored up, though some certainly are. I simply consider the claims to be flawed and lacking in support. The concept you fail to grasp is that truly sufficient evidence should be able convince those who are disinclined to accept something as true, not just confirm the beliefs of those who were already halfway there in the first place.

And while you're posting links, how about a few discussing the merits of various theories about the mechanism for ESP, PK, or other psi phenomenon? How do psi researches propose that our brains receive and transmit thought energy over distances? Since they've already "proven" that these phenomenon are real, they should be well down this road of research too, after more than a century of investigation.

[Blashyrkh]

193. Not directly, but you can't expect to compared psi researchers to...

...two groups of "scientists" who are known to lie repeatedly for their own benefit without the implication being pretty clear. If you don't want people to think that you consider psi researchers frauds, don't compare them to other frauds. You're being disingenous if you're gonna claim you weren't trying to smear by association.

over the past 5+ years I've come to view the established scientific community in the same light as a the established religious community; designed to deceive and manipulate.

[skepticscott]

202. The point

in case you missed it, is that simple declarations by those with a strongly vested interest in seeing a certain worldview maintained, are pretty much worthless without independent verification. And despite what you seem to think, deliberate and conscious fraud is not the only way it works. People in those situations are subject to all kinds of biases, whether they realize it or not, and when you combine that with the failure of other scientists to replicate their results, it renders them essentially valueless. What's more, if psi researchers weren't aware that their field was shaky science from the word go, where is the research (or even informed speculation) on mechanism? If they were really serious about all this, that's a topic they'd be all over, just like serious scientists in every other field. They're as phony and disingenuous as ID "researchers" who claim that all they have to do is show that there was a designer, and who never show even the slightest interest in exploring theories about who or what it might have been. How you coming with those links, btw?

[PVnRT]

204. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Great meta-humor.






Oh, wait. You were serious. That makes it even funnier.

[Dorian Gray]

205. Parapsychology

though a fun study, is not a currently accepted branch of scientific study.

[flashl]

184. I believe that you are on to something

An example may be the long held Western belief that there are 5 human senses. Outside of Western understanding about the number of human senses the count can be > 70.

What is the Western answer? Additional human senses are A DISORDER, synesthesia.

Simply labeling the expansion of human senses a disorder denies the possibility that in fact we possess more than five senses.

Chinese, American doctors meet at MIT for medical exchange

Scientific medicine is justified by the scientific method. Much of what we use in Western hospitals today is not proved by the scientific method. Medicine is still an art; we try different things and what seems to work, we use.

I would say that neither Chinese nor American medicine is scientific. Both do what they can to relieve suffering and in some cases there is scientific validation," he said. "Science is a very slow process and sick people can't wait."

Scientific is a goal and an aspiration," said Shore. "We're trying in both countries to add the science."
Read More ...

[cyborg_jim]

212. It already is meaningless

Anyways, to answer the question, simply because if humanity knew the truth about existence and the nature of reality, our "jobs", our "families", our "possessions", our "lives" would be meaningless.

They already are. They have meaning only because we give them meaning. You're wasting your time looking at atoms to see if they give a shit.

I believe ESP, telekinesis and other mental powers can be learnt as they are inherent abilities in humans, just as breathing or locomotion is.

And I believe I could turn back time if I could fly around the world backwards.

Belief and $5 will buy you a pretzel.

Humans would never settle for 9-5 jobs, would never settle for living the existence we do, if we could reach for anything better.

Ah. So your belief in ESP, TK and other 'mental powers' is based on some notion that suddenly everything would be better and different and that we wouldn't end up in a world where having ESP and TK would pretty much put us in a world much like it is now but with ESP and TK.

[Zornhau]

15. I take it you're ready to go back to the dark ages then...

btw, you can thank science for allowing you to post that on your computer that's hooked to the internet...

[sojourner]

69. One need not idolize science in order to appreciate its accomplishments.

It has indeed proven to be a most effective tool in discovery of useful information. But will I let science decide how I should make every decision in my life? I am afraid not, as there are things in life that science has proven itself useless in either demonstrating or disproving.

The problem for me arises when scientists (not all, please note) decide that THEY have the TRUTH...and that ONLY they have the ONLY truth, even if they have not bothered to look to see if there might be other truths.

[TZ]

81. cite your source please

I have never heard ANY scientist say that.
I have however heard that from the people who say I am right, and if you ignore me you MUST be closed minded..I find the pseudoscientific advocates to be the most dogmatic of them all (and yes I have met some dogmatic thinking scientists)

[ClintonTyree]

86. Has anyone proved that there are "other truths"?

Please enlighten me if these "other truths" indeed exist. Could you give me an example of an "other truth" discovered without the help of Science? I'm always open to other avenues of exploration, but as yet I haven't seen concrete evidence that any other exists. Help me out here.

[Xipe Totec]

110. Well, there's Georg Cantor...

Cantor's diagonal argument, also called the diagonalisation argument, the diagonal slash argument or the diagonal method, was published in 1891 by Georg Cantor as a proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers.

In layman's terms, not every function is computable.

Since predicates are functions whose values represent true or false, not every truth is computable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor\'s_diagonal_argumen...





Then there's Alan Turing's halting problem:

In computability theory the halting problem is a decision problem which can be stated as follows:

Given a description of a program and a finite input, decide whether the program finishes running or will run forever, given that input. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist. We say that the halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines.

In layman's terms, not every truth is decidable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem




And finally, Kurt Gödel

In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

The theorems are also of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del\'s_incompletene...


Let me state that I am a firm believer in science; It is the best tool we have for ascertaining the truth of anything that is probable. Unfortunately, not everything is probable.

Mathematics is the language of science. As such, science can only describe those truths that are expressible mathematically. I do not advocate an alternative to science, or a replacement for it. Al I am saying here is that science, like all human endeavors, has its limits.

[sojourner]

130. well said. better than I could have done. thanks

I feel the same way about science. I just don't like the arrogance I am reading on this thread.

[ClintonTyree]

174. Well, you proved my point.

I asked if there were any "truths" that have been proved without the help of Science. You gave three examples that were all proved (or not) using Science. As Bob Boudelang used to say, "arrest my case".

[bananas]

214. No, mathematics is not science.

Case dismissed.

[cyborg_jim]

213. Or...

Mathematics is so powerful there is no end to the descriptions it can provide. Being unlimited trying to ask it where the limits are gives you a contradiction.

You want infinite truths finitely? Some infinite truths are infinite - finite explanations are impossible: by definition. You have to have the whole thing as is.

Worse than that the whole notion of 'truth' becomes pretty meaningless. It is, after all, in a purely mathematical system nothing more than a symbol: a jot. No more significance to it than that.

[sojourner]

111. i was referring to such "truths" as the inherent value of a life,

science doesn't seem to have discovered much about it, yet unless one accepts it as a truth, one may treat lives other than their own as unimportant. Science has long held that infants can't/don't feel pain. For that reason they withheld palliative treatment for babies suffering from terminal illnesses. Only recently have I read that this is changing. At one time I went along with that -- on the say=so of the enlightened and better educated scientists. After having my own children I realized that there are some things that scientists don't know how to measure. Knowing that makes me a skeptical observer of the scientific process. I'm being heard a one who dismisses science. This is not the case. I love the challenge of scientific research - it's downright fun to design and carefully execute a research project. But I am critical of the arrogant stance taken by too many scientists who have convinced themselves that they know all there is to know and that if they can't measure it it doesn't exist.

I'd rather prefer a more modest admission that falsifying a hypothesis in the lab does not amount to proving anythng. Why not? Because simple logic says you cannot prove the negative. Anything dispoved is simply the falsification of a particular hypothesis under particular circumstances.

But you go right ahead and say to yourself that you know all there is to know. Dismiss that which yoiu cannot prove. Just don't try to force that down everyone else's throat. Or like the doctors who "knew" so much about infants you may find yourself dismissing some really important but as yet unproven truths - for example that infants can and do feel pain. Ask any mother.

[ClintonTyree]

173. Where did I ever state....

that I "know all there is to know". Being a Scientist I'm frightfully aware of how ignorant I am and unraveling life's secrets is a lifetime project. The more I learn the more I'm convinced that my ignorance outstrips my knowledge by an order of magnitude. And I NEVER "dismiss that that which I cannot prove". THOSE are the mysteries that keep me going, that make me WANT to delve further into the physical world. However, not being able to prove them DOES NOT mean that they are supernatural of paranormal. That assumption is as ridiculous as what you accuse me of.

It seems that the religious are the people who seem to "know all there is to know". It's amazingly easy when you never question anything and use the blanket of "faith" to explain the inexplicable.

My money is on Science solving the world's problems. Where's yours?

[sojourner]

132. cant right now ..going to work. will try later.

[ElboRuum]

137. You are delusional about what scientists think...

I have never known a scientist who ever made a claim to the "truth" as if truth were a unitary thing capable of being owned. Part of being a scientist is knowing that you DON'T know too much of anything. Science is less about truth than it is about the SEARCH.

Think about this logically, if scientists decided "that THEY have the TRUTH...and that ONLY they have the ONLY truth", then what pray tell are they doing still looking for it? Hmm? I would think that this would indicate to someone that, at the very minimum, what truths they are aware of must be leading to questions, which in turn lead to still more truths, and then to more questions... et cetera.

It comes down to this... what a scientist will argue against, and what you may be presuming to be a "closed-mindedness" is the attempt to describe things with no scientific basis in scientific terms.

Some examples...

ESP, while a concept which is interesting and provocative, has never been shown, under the scrutiny of scientific method, to be anything but a claim, yet some people still believe it exists, and moreover still others claim to possess it. Sure, clairvoyance, telekinesis, telepathy, remote viewing, and all of these other subtopics of ESP are certainly interesting, and there is plenty of lore in our modern culture, as well as historically, to captivate the imagination in its regard. But there hasn't been one single provable case of ESP. Not one.

UFOs, well these exist. In a way. You see, UFO stands for unidentified flying object. So their existence is really relative of the individual's particular ability to identify the objects in question. Was it a flying saucer, though? Certainly, getting the irrefutable photographic evidence of extraterrestrial life would be of EXTRAORDINARY INTEREST to your average astronomer, since this is just the kind of thing they've been hoping to see. But not once have we been able to get that proof. I can only guess that technology itself is muddying the waters, since anyone can do a half-professional job of photographic fakery with a copy of Photoshop.

But people still buy the miracle cures and the snake oil, don't they?

[TZ]

17. "science has its place" sounds ALOT like

I like so and so group as long as they stay in their "proper place", IMHO.
Where is its place..at the back of the bus? (so to speak?)

[Basileus Basileon]

18. This is incorrect.

Science extends to cover the entirety of the universe and everything within it. The scientific method is the only useful means of gaining factual knowledge.

[Odin2005]

38. BS. When people say such comments it because they don't want "subject X" to be...

...put under the scientific lens lest their wishful thinking be disproved. Philosopher Daniel Dennett has compared "Science has it's place" and similar rhetoric to Dumbo's friends stopping a crow that was about to tell Dumbo he actually wasn't flying. Dennett uses this example in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea in which he criticizes attempts to "protect" the social sciences from Evolutionary Biology.

[cgrindley]

119. That's just plain dumb

that post just held a dumb parade in dumb town and the mayor even showed up and proclaimed a special day in honor of all the dumb.

[sufrommich]

128. lol! nt

[NMMNG]

11. K&R

Most excellent rant.

[slowry]

12. Bit of a WALLOFTEXT, but great post, thanks :)!

It's funny: some people think it's close-minded to be unconvinced that aliens are visiting us. In fact, it's close-minded to decide there are aliens visiting us, because it certainly hasn't been proved -- you have to leave the possibility open that you could be wrong, especially with only blurry photographs and eye-witness accounts as "evidence".

[FloridaJudy]

13. About that 30-40% effectiveness...

The FDA has approved medications that are far less effective than that! One prescription remedy for toe-nail fungus has a 2% cure rate. Yup that's right: 2%. I didn't lose a decimal point. Despite that, it's widely advertised to consumers: check out the ads in any glossy magazine, and then read the fine print. An expensive drug with an abysmal cure rate for a non-life-threatening condition? The FDA probably approved it because it's innocuous. Systemic anti-fungals are cheap and work really well, but they can have serious side effects. You wouldn't lose anything but a cartload of money by trying the stuff that only works one time out of twenty first, as opposed to - say - losing your liver or kidneys. If it were up to me, I'd just resign myself to wearing colorful socks to hide the problem.

Many other drugs have low effectiveness but stay on the market because the conditions they treat are so horrendous. One popular drug has a 40% effectiveness against certain forms of hepatitis C: certainly worth a try if your only alternative is a liver transplant several years down the road. Many other forms of chemotherapy only have a 20% cure rate for certain lethal cancers. Again, that's definitely worth a trial if the alternative is death. The odds are much better than the lottery, and the pay-off is bigger.

It all comes down to a cost/benefit decision, where not all of the costs are financial. It's worth trying something with less than 100% effectiveness at times. And "alternative" methods do seem to work for some people, albeit only anecdotally. If I had a malignant disease, I wouldn't forgo chemotherapy in favor of coffee enemas and a macrobiotic diet, but I might try them as well. Don't knock the placebo effect. It's why scientists do controlled double-blind studies.

So if someone thinks that waving crystals over her pancreas will help her manage her diabetes, I wouldn't discourage her, just as long as she takes her insulin and watches her diet as well. What's unconscionable is when people prey on the fears of others to promote unproven remedies. Many of the "alternative" medical treatments promoted do just that, but it's not limited to the New Age woo-woo types.

Just check out the ads for toe-nail fungus.

[TZ]

19. I should have said MOST drugs

The company I work for does not put product on the market that is not highly effective. Most comapanies won't because then the costs of research/production would be not worth it. THere are certainly some things (like Hep C) where treatments are limited so anything on the market is welcome.
As for toenail fungus...usually not a life threatening condition, so efficacy is not a big deal there.
The placebo effect happens but it still does not throw off serious infections or heal damaged organs. I think the placebo effect is a bit overrated, IMHO.
But people are WAAAY too credulous about homeopathic and alternative methods, IMO.

[windoe]

29. use AND instead of OR

My father was a scientist and mathematician, mother was very religious, so somehow I combined these two worlds together into one worldview. I have the highest respect and awe for the exact sciences, yet as an individual have had experiences that unmistakeably confirm a pattern of reality that extends beyond my 5 senses.
This discussion has to do with freedom of belief.
DU to me is a forum discussing the political social world, and the question that often comes up is: How does such a diverse group of people as the United States, consisting of fundamentalists, scientists, athiests, progressives, and new agers all find common ground? THIS to me is the question that a democracy works towards. I believe that the laws of the land should deal with the physical world, and what has an impact on the physical world.
This means that in the physical world we obey the laws of the land, which includes freedom to believe whatever we wish, and to not encourage violence and oppression for people that are of another belief system. Period.
Should laws criminalize someone choosing alternative medicine? This is a process we are still working out, since alternative medicine is new (to the west). I believe that an integrative approach is the way to go. We may come to a set of laws that honor the individual choice of the adult person, if that choice does not create a health hazard for another individual--for example.
If we have an intention to include and combine all knowlege together, we can learn a lot. We can honor someone's spiritual beliefs in the course of healing, IF this is a spiritual person, working with the spiritual body will benefit them, while people who do not have these beliefs may not respond to this treatment and may find it annoying or disturbing. This is Wholistic medicine, treating the whole individual.
Unfortunately when it comes to alternative medicine, wading through all the charlatains and snake oil salesmen is the ultimate challenge.
The question of freedom of belief has health issue implications and this has to be worked out.
Personally I find a worldview that is INCLUSIVE in a diverse world works better than the old dogmas that ridicule, dehumanize and EXCLUDE.
(meant as a general response)

[truedelphi]

37. Thank you for adding that into the discussion. I am with you

All the way.

The waving crystals and pancreas and need to take the insulin was well thought out and well stated.

People can heal themselves all the time. I would not mind a "cure for cancer" that was 100% of the time merely a placebo - if the placebo really cured the cancer.

I just lost a friend (Feb 9th) who was told three years ago she had six months to live. She didn't want to beleive it, and even two weeks before she was to die, she was unconvinced that her cancer was that bad.

She did of course do the recommended surgeries, chemo and radiation interventions etc. She also attemopted to eat more organically, cut back on meat, sugar and coffee, and took a Dec 2006 trip to have fun in Carmel CA.

Perhaps without her great belief in the possibility of being saved, she would have died at the six month mark.

[TZ]

42. and I had a cousin who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer

and told that she had 6 months to live. She died THREE months after diagnosis. And NO she didn't have a death wish. She wanted to live as much as anybody. Cancer is an odd disease. If scientists understood it better, there could be much better treatments. Do you really think most docs don't realize that cancer treatments are often almost as bad as the disease? Sorry, placebo effect and the postive (or wishful thinking) thinking can only carry one so far.....

[slowry]

48. It's like when those 1-5 people walk out of a burning building, where 100s died,

and say "God was watching out for me". If I'd lost anyone, I'd want to deck them...

[Evoman]

51. Lol. If it were me, they would probably join the 100.

[truedelphi]

67. So how am I under attack here??

Sorry your cousin died. But your post suggests that I was saying if someone dies, they had a death wish.

No where in my post do I say that people who die of cancer have a death wish. Nor do I believe if you don't cure yourself of cancer, it must be that you wanted to die. In fact, the person I choose as my example actually went and died!!


I do think emotions bring about certain hormonal states, and sometimes, if certain conditions exist, the emotions and the belief state can generate healing. Sometimes partial healing and sometimes total healing. Not all the time.

Mother Teresa was told to rest or to forget living for very long. She ignored her doctors and continued doing her work and lived for a good fifteen years after being told her prognosis was grim. Her problem was a bad heart - and the thing about a bad ticker is some people simply plateau for years and years with a bad heart. They are told they will be ded tomorrow because the doctor thinks the heart will be worse tomorrow, but for some individuals, that tomorrow is a long way away.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most difficult diseases to fight against. And the people I have known with it are fine for a while and then just suddenly go to bed and stay there and die in a matter of weeks. But at the time of the initial diagnosis, they cannot believe they have this killer disease. They are still in their garden. They are still going to voting activist causes. Until one day, they are just shutting down.

[mr blur]

16. Well said! It's astonishing and infuriating that

to so many people "mystical" and "progressive" seem to belong together, as if it were somehow laudable to be willing to accept that crystals can cure cancer and homeopathy is anything but a joke.

In the pre-election fever your country is going through now it seems unbelievable to me that some people can claim that a candidate is "open minded" because he believes in UFOs. On the other hand, I would say that a pride in an unwillingness to accept Evolution or a claim that a supernatural entity controls our lives are also factors which should render someone unfit for the position of President.

[Odin2005]

39. The New Age Wacko = Progressive meme is a result of the New Age BS from the 60s and 70s.

Starting around 40 years ago it started becoming popular among some groups to bash science.

[Codeine]

44. You want a pain in the ass?

I'm vegan and liberal/progressive. I've got two sets of people trying to feed me heaping handfuls of the woo-woo and trying to convince me that I'm not really committed to my beliefs because I refuse to embrace their silliness.

[cgrindley]

120. I think it's a problem with the boomer generation

who were basically encouraged to question the man at every opportunity without ever wondering if the man could be right once in a while.

[Odin2005]

152. I don't think it's necessarily the Boomers themselves, but the "Establishment is always wrong"...

...mentality itself that became popular among the Boomers.

[sojourner]

20. That's a nice list of defenses for scientists..........

however even though I have a career that includes having worked as scientist - trained in rigorous research using the experimental method - I HAVE encountered inexplicable phenomena, as have many individuals here on DU (some of whom might also have worked in scientific pursuits for all you know).

One day I offered to show a curious phenomenon to my fellow scientist - a good personal friend - and his reaction? Scientific curiosity? A desire to personally observe something that would help him to possibly refute or at least help explain the phenomenon? NO!! He literally backed away, demurring and saying "No, no....that's all right". You may recall how Galileo's peers first reacted when he showed them his telescope? (Shermer be damned...it isn't until you LOOK that you can state whether something is valid or not.)

So, after reading a good many scientific studies involving so-called "pseudo science" and reading the "debunking" of said research by self-acclaimed "skeptics" I have come to the conclusion that much of the scientific community suffers from a religious belief.

Your example of research re: ESP is a poor example of how an informed person would use the information. The question isn't whether one should "see a doctor who is only right 30-40% of the time" ------- I believe that investigation into what accounts for the findings is called for, rather than simple rejection of the observation. Science should serve to seek explanations for phenomena, not just write them off.

[alarimer]

21. That's bullshit

There is NOTHING that cannot be explained rationally, without resorting to woo-woo nonsense. It might be inexplicable to YOU but not to the scientific method. I am heartily sick of the science is a religion nonsense too. It simply isn't true. Science is a method of arriving at the truth, that's all. Done correctly, it will eliminate all the nonsense.

As I mentioned upthread, James Randi has a million-dollar prize that has so far gone unclaimed because claimants are unwilling or unable to meet the rigorous standards of scientific proof. They are most likely either delusional or complete frauds (see Sylvia Brown and Kevin Trudeau).

[FloridaJudy]

31. I tend to be skeptical myself

But some people carry it too far. Several years ago, a major medical center did a controlled, double-blind study of acupuncture (and that was no easy trick!), which showed that for certain types of pain acupuncture was very effective. The reaction of several professional skeptics was that they still didn't believe it because "there was no reasonable explanation for how it worked". Duuude! Until fifty years ago, we didn't know how aspirin worked, but no one doubted it was an effective drug. You've got an elegant study done by a reputable institution, and published in a peer-reviewed journal, and you say you don't believe it because it violates your preconceptions? Who's thinking like a creationist now? I thought it was fascinating, and should be investigated further: that's the reaction I would expect of a real scientist. As someone once put it the sound of scientific progress is not "Eureka!", but "Hmmm. That's odd...."

And a lot of stuff done by mainstream medicine is based on tradition alone: "we've always done it that way, and you're not going to change it". Case in point: pre-surgical shaving. Numerous studies have shown that shaving the area concerned prior to surgery increases the risk of postoperative infections. Minute razor cuts and burns provide an entry for bacteria you really don't want near a surgical incision. Leaving the hair alone is less of a risk. If the patient is unusually hirsute, gentle clipping of the area is a better choice. But many surgeons still insist on a "full prep", and goddess help the nurse who dares disagree (been there/done that). Likewise, keeping a patient NPO (nothing by mouth - not even water) both before and after surgery just adds to the patients' discomfort and does nothing to hasten the recovery time or lessen the risks of surgery. But guess what? Yup, it's still a common practice in many hospitals. No one's advocating a major bowel resection after a full plate of lasagna, but letting a patient sip water before and after a hysterectomy strikes me as humane, having had it done the old way myself.

I think evidence-based medicine is one of the most exciting developments around, but it does require an open mind. And contempt prior to investigation (and even after) is not a helpful attitude.

[TZ]

32. Doctors have good reason for skepticism..

Crap like this is all too common..
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOME...


FYI- almost all the health/science type people I know do accept that accupuncture has some therapeutic value. Its when people start claiming its a cure all that the scientists I know get very skeptical

[sojourner]

64. Again, I see the resort to a straw man argument. I will not argue for a particular event

presenting EVIDENCE for the explanation of a particular phenomenon. I will, however, add it to the list of observations from which to begin deriving possible explanations (hypotheses)without regard for whether such explanations are or are not "acceptable". I will NOT be bound by artificial limits imposed by incurious minds.

[sojourner]

65. Aren't you just taking the slippery slope? Just because I would argue that

accupuncture (and other non-traditional "healing" methodologies including Reiki) have therapeutic value as shown by scientific study, what on God's earth makes you think I'd say that any one methodology, including pharmacology, is a cure-all?

[SidDithers]

107. Can you please provide the scientific study...

which shows the therapeutic value of Reiki?

Thanks.

Sid

[sojourner]

127. I am going to work. I'll post studies when I get back this eve. Sorry for delay.

But I have them.

[SidDithers]

189. kick for a reminder...nt

Sid

[sojourner]

63. Thank You -- that sums it up nicely!

[sojourner]

61. How about Dr. Gary Schwartz from University of Arizona?

Fraud or delusional?

[TZ]

77. Plenty of not so bright PhD's

I have met many myself at of all places NIH.

[liberation]

87. Using an exception to confirm a norm?

It seems that they do not require psychologist to take basic introductory classes in logic and proof.

[sojourner]

134. THat was an uncalled for remark. I have TAUGHT logic.

Maybe you could come down from your self-appointed pedestal for long enough to have a real discussion.

[TZ]

23. ah yes very convincing (not)

the old you are wrong and the old I know because of this...anecdoctal evidence and claims of experience in the field with little actual proof of this background is EXACTLY my point on how pseudoscience works. Intellectual laziness is sooo easy isn't it?
I haven't met anyone in 20+ years of science that would behave that way.
Would you like to tell me what your training is in? And there has been plenty of investigation into ESP, most of which have shown little proof of it. Funny how only the few FLAWED studies (and research design is pretty complex most people have NO clue how complex.
Ignoring the 20 studies that show negative proof versus the one that shows *something* is very common

[sojourner]

59. As one who has earned recognition from none other that the American Psychological

Foundation for my research, and have made a living as a research consultant, I think I have a clue as to the complexities of good research design. Better than many you have encountered.

I only used ESP because it was used by poster to whom I responded. There are other, better topics to which you and yours would respond identically because you have been told that it is anathema to consider anything that has been declared "pseudoscience".

It's okay because I've dealt with fundamentalist Christians also. The similarities are striking to anyone with an open mind.

[TZ]

80. Once again insults are SOOOOO credible....

You may quote me on this (and other not so bright people have)...When one has no logic in their weaponry one must resort to insults:
closed-minded, thats a straw man, pharma shill, etc....

[liberation]

84. I would be hard pressed to consider Psychology a science...

As a Ph.D in electrical engineering with eons of experience in research both in academia and industry, I have never encountered a research "consultant." So I have no idea what your qualifications are.

Anyhow, if you think that pulling rank does somehow add validity to your point, I think that you will find two things: a) you may be easily outranked by other people in this forum, and b) you may be projecting some of your very own prejudices onto the people you are accusing of lacking an open mind.

ESP is a not even a pseudo science, that is a nice trojan horse trying to use "pseudo" as if the second part of the word "science" was warranted. There is no such thing as "pseudoscience." Something is a science or it is not, there is no grey area in between.

The test is very simple really; Can the facts be fully studied, measured, and explained via theories? Furthermore, can those explanations and theories lead to reproducible experimentation and robust models? If the answer to both questions is yes, then it is a science. If any of those tests don't pass, then it is not a science.

Simple as that, none of this nonsense of "pseudo science" crap. ESP can not be measured, it can not be explained, and most importantly it can not be reproduced. That is why a lot of the areas of study of psychology can't be considered a science, BTW.

[LeftishBrit]

97. Psychology is certainly a science (or at any rate can be studied by the scientific method)

And ESP is not only a topic amenable to scientific study; it's *received* lots of scientific study. The only problem - if you call it a problem - is that none of the scientific studies have given conclusive support to the hypothesis that ESP exists, at least as normally defined; and most give no support at all to the hypothesis.

Anyone interested in the topic might want to look at J. Alcock, J. Burns and A. Freeman (eds.) Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic, 2003.

[tigereye]

192. lots of pyschological studies seem to have good design

and quite enough rigor...

having read quite a few....

[mr blur]

26. Substiture "Woo" for "Creationist" here:

and I think that just about sums up your POV.

And this "religious belief in science" crap is getting very old. Trust and faith are two very different things.

[sojourner]

55. again....I trust science. I don't trust scientists who decide facts before allowing for observation.

[TZ]

56. Really. Please give me an example of this..

Its been my observation that most non-scientists like to decide they know the answers BEFORE any kind of data or explanation can be explored.
As in this example:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-ufo22au...

[liberation]

78. He can't....

Most non scientist wouldn't know science and how it works if it bite them in the arse.

Some people think that Einstein et al woke up one day and they had all figured it all out. They tend to ignore why there are few scientist: BECAUSE IT IS DAMN HARD. The scientific process takes a shitload of time and effort, and in some respects scientist are masochist because for the most part it is an exercise in frustration. It does not matter what you believe or what your intuition tells you, you will find that a lot of times, most times in fact, you are wrong and it is by learning from those mistakes that you can get to the correct answer. And that is a loooong and torturous road let me tell you.

A good scientist is not a cheerleader of his theories, but the devil's advocate of the opposing facts to his theories.

[sojourner]

66. Look at most of the posts on this self-congratulatory thread.

Everyone of the posters has encountered some curiousity in his/her life, I'm willing to bet, that made them question themselves. But they dismiss their observations, and those of many others, in favor of the sheer idiocy of the application of faulty logic --

Example in point:

Some A are B. (Some UFOs are later found to be weather balloons)
All B are C. (All weather balloons are man-made)
All A are C. (All UFOs are man-made)

[TZ]

76. No one is arguing this point that there are some unexplanable things

How EVER most UFO sighters say this "You can't explain this, there fore it MUST be aliens!"
Scientists do get interested in the unexplainable, but however they don't go for the easy "if I can't explain it now it must be aliens or paranormal bullshit either".

[skepticscott]

89. You miss the point

As I stated in my previous post, even though past debunking doesn't necessarily bear on the truth of present and future claims it can certainly gives a reasonable person good cause to doubt whether a phenomenon is worth spending their time investigating. Just because people have admitted faking number photographs, footprints and films of things like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster doesn't PROVE that those creatures don't actually exist, but a critical thinker is justified in arguing that the likelihood is too low to justify camping out with a video camera waiting for them to appear. Just because there is no credible physical evidence (after tens of thousand of reports) that alien spacecraft have visited earth and kidnapped millions of earthlings doesn't mean the next light in the sky won't be a true extraterrestrial, but I'd frankly rather spend my time elsewhere until something more tangible comes along.

Would it be important if we actually did find evidence of alien visitation? Sure. It would also be important if we found a cure for diabetes, or developed a working fusion power plant, or any of a thousand other worthwhile things. Dismissiveness is not due to lack of curiosity, but to lack of time and lack of evidence that there's something there worth investigating.

[REP]

90. You did not form your syllogism properly

I don't think one can be made properly with those givens.

[sojourner]

112. My syllogism was faulty. Absolutely. That's the point.

[Odin2005]

100. IIRC a lot of UFOs seen in the late 80s turned out to be B2 Stealth Bombers back...

...when they were still top secret.

IMO UFOs are:

1. satellites
2. birds
3. ball lightning or other weird atmospheric electric phenomena
4. top secret aircraft.
5. the planet Venus.

[sojourner]

116. I don't care what UFO's are or are not., only that people have seen them and that

scientists should rightly try to figure out what they are. That they have tried is exemplified in your list. That's the right way ot approach things. To dismiss something immediately, however is not how science should operate, IMO, because science cannot prove a negative. You can show that most unidentified flying objects eventually are identified as something other than extraterrestrial craft. I can accept such a statement. However. to label people who say they've seen something inexplicable as "nut jobs" or crazies is downright disrespectful and shows both an arrogance more like clergy than scientists and a contempt for the uneducated that reminds me of the church's onetime view.

[ElboRuum]

149. Well, how's this for faulty logic.

Let's say that A is a reasonable scientific explanation for a phenomenon. Let's say that B is the other unscientifically founded explanation for a phenomenon.

If A must exist, by definition, in view of fact and testable theory, and B does not have this requirement (say, it's only requirements for validity are anecdotal)

We test A, as per requirements.
If A either fails to be the correct explanation, or too little evidence exists to prove A as either correct or incorrect,
Then B must be the correct explanation.

Faulty logic, would you not agree?

The point is, B resists proof, A begs it. A scientist does not accept that B must be the truth simply in the absence of an A. If A fails proof, a scientist will formulate a C, perhaps a D, and not be content to accept B simply because A failed. B, existing in a vacuum, devoid of scrutiny, and more importantly resisting all attempts at scrutiny, cannot be reasonably classified as science. A scientist would reasonably argue this classification as a result.

[skepticscott]

58. Why do you assume

when other scientists are uninterested or dismissive when you tout a claim that you personally consider "curious" or "inexplicable" that they are being closed-minded or exhibiting some sort of religious adherence to the status quo? So many people assume that their claims of extraordinary phenomenon are something new and wonderful, when in all likelihood, we've heard the same sort of thing ten, twenty, a hundred times already and shown it to be groundless. Even if past debunking doesn't PROVE that a new claim must be bogus, we're tired of wasting our time and granting attention to claims with flimsy evidence and a very low probability of yielding anything fruitful. If we had unlimited time, money and resources, sure. But science is time-consuming and difficult work, and scientists have many, many worthy things to spend their time and money investigating. We're tired of answering the same tired and discredited arguments about creationism for the umpteenth time, we've got better things to do than wade through reams of data purporting (yet again) to show an ESP event of marginal statistical significance to find the inevitible flaw, and we don't have time to test every "free energy" perpetual motion machine that comes through the door. When you've got the alien bodies in the freezer and their spacecraft in a hangar, then call us, but don't accuse us of being closed-minded because we don't consider it worth our while to investigate every unexplained light in the sky.

[sojourner]

60. You like ESP as your straw man. I am not defending it per se. I AM, however arguing with some

knowledge and experience about the closed minded attitude of many scientists with regard to their choice of what is "worthwhile" to consider --- which by the way I know to be closely related to availability of resources (money) and to that which might possibly be accepted for publication by a reputable journal.

Publication of research in "peer reviewed journals" is another joke. Tell me it isn't about politics. I dare you.

[liberation]

71. Most peer reviewed publications are at least single or double "blind" ...

Sure some ideas take longer to get accepted, but eventually they do. A lot of mediocre ideas are easily filtered out.

If you publish in a serious journal or conference, politics is part of the game, but it won't get you paper accepted. It is part of the process of salesmanship obviously...

[nealmhughes]

186. Here, here (or is it hear, hear?). I teach and write on scholarly communication.

There are actually standards used in the process! Shock! Name does not trump content by any means, but it can get you throught the first step getting peer reviewed. But since the peers do not know whom they are reviewing, nor do the authors know who the peers are, there is a good -- actually an overwhelming chance -- that the parties can't even read between the lines and figure out who is who.

The flow is as follows: seminar paper/working paper, conference paper, first edited draft for peer review, approval or disapproval by the peers, then publication after changes if needed and a new review, then replies/collaries to the original, ad infin.

Of course, sometimes there will be no conference paper, and no one will go beyond the initial paper's publication (purely out of boredom/BS factor but not so deep a BS factor to warrant their time for reply, etc.

There is a reason that scholarly communication is called that. Ackoff calls it an "open, complex system" with positive and negative feedback.

[TZ]

79. It isn't because

I was on the losing end of nasty politics at NIH and yet somehow, I found my way (with my boss who was under attack as well) into a paper co authored by the "enemy"
That journal--Procedings in the National Academy of Sciences.
Come back to me when YOU have data published in a prestigous journal
FYI:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/48/18243?m...
I think I have a BIT more experience with this than you do

[skepticscott]

92. ESP is not a straw man

Not considering how much time, money and ink that might have been better spent have been wasted on it. In fact, it's a prime example of scientific investigators beating their heads against a wall for over a century and STILL struggling to replicate events of even marginal statistical significance within experimental designs that aren't deeply flawed and STILL unable to propose even remotely plausible and testable mechanisms for how such phenomena might occur even if there were real. It's certainly possible to investigate such alleged events and abilities scientifically, but one of the hallmarks of a true science, as opposed to a pseudoscience, is that it advances in knowledge and understanding over time, mainly because it is studying things that actually exist. The study of ESP and other "psi"
phenomenon has failed this criterion miserably, and it's entirely justifiable to shunt that area of research into the category of pseudoscience.

[sojourner]

114. I am referring to that very fact. Every scientist on this thread is holding up

ESP in their argument. I am not defending or alleging anything about ESP in my posts. I am trying to say that science is a tool. It is a method, so far a pretty good one, for getting explanations for natural phenomena. But there are things that people experience that science hasn't explained.

As to your throwdown about rejecting the scientific efforts of those who do attmept to study the forbidden, explain to me how a Harvard graduate got himself a department at U of Az studying consciousness? He is quite a respectable researcher, not a crackpot, and it is his insistence on the scientific method that sets him apart. You, however, lump him willy-nilly into a group that you dismiss out of hand.

[LeftishBrit]

125. There are lots of scientists studying consciousness

Who said that it was a forbidden subject?

Consciousness does not equal ESP. But even ESP is not a 'forbidden subject' to science, and has been studied lots of times - the studies have just failed to demonstrate it convincingly.

[sojourner]

129. That's correct. But read this thread. The contempt and the use of ESP

as so-called scientist's favorite whipping boy (don't forget UFOs) tells me about a religious faith and the superiority of the faithful over the dirty unwashed masses who are still curious about experiential phenomena.

[ElboRuum]

151. Right.

So science should quit trying to explain them and merely "accept" their reality? Or are you conjecturing that science should spend more time, not only to verify the very existence of these things, but also to find out where they come from? I'm a little confused at the intent of your line of argument.

[liberation]

70. Just because *you* can't explain something doesn't meant that something is inexplicable....

The reason why science advances is because people who were competent and curious did not take the laziness and mental mediocrity of others who wanted the easy way out and assume that somethings are what they are and can't be explained.

The scientific method is not religious simply because it relies on two things: facts, and reproducibility. It is fairly solid at separating reality for bullshit. You can thank that method next time you go to a hospital and you get a treatment rather than a prayer and a well wish from a voodoo practitioner.

[cgrindley]

121. Writing off internet political forum "evidence" of ESP and UFOs is probably

the sanest possible thing to do. Anyone who uses internet postings on this site to argue for the existence of shit that clearly doesn't exist has a screw loose. I don't care how adamantly people claim to have seen this shit. They haven't.

[Uncle Joe]

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, turltensue.

[Junkdrawer]

22. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.": Samuel Johnson

"Sole ownership of the Scientific Method is the last refuge of the Drug Company Shill.": Junkdrawer

[TZ]

24. Hey insults always are SOOOO convincing....

They are the last refuge of the ignorant thats for sure!