The One True Method

[Randall]

The title of this thread is a play on what the skeptics call the No True Scotsman fallacy. Basically it means that during a debate, when faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, the arguer will modify the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric. For the skeptics, the scientific method is their "One True Method" ... their universal claim. To quote one version, "The scientific method is the only way we can know for sure ( insomuch as we can be sure of anything ) about the interpretations we make of our experiences of the cosmos."

The counterexample to the One True Method is firsthand human experience, which often is just as good or better than scientific analysis in being sure about the interpretations we make of our experiences. A specific example would be if you burn your finger, you know with absolute certainty what has happened long before you ever get to the doctor. The skeptics will then try to counter by modifying their assertion to exclude that specific example and others like it, usually resorting to trivializing the value of human experience in an attempt to prop up their One True Method. But in the end the One True Method simply cannot be sustained because the counterexamples are far more prevalent than this one example. Virtually all our experiences are the result of sensory input and many of the parameters are known and laid down in science. Proof of this can be found in our ability to do things like calculate how to grind lenses to magnify or correct our vision.

So in reality our firsthand experiences can ( and more often than not ), do provide us with the ability to accurately interpret the world around us without the need for scientific verification. We would have never survived and evolved this far without having that ability, an ability that was around long before the scientific method. But how do we apply this to the subject of UFOs. That's simple. To suggest that our ability suddenly becomes useless when confronted with a new challenge is to deny the amazing abilities we have as human beings to evaluate and adapt to new situations. Again, our very existence is proof of this amazing ability. Certainly we may not always get it right, but with persistence and study eventually we improve and often do get it right. The scientific method is no different. Rarely does it get things right the first time around when faced with an unfamiliar problem.

To conclude, none of this is to imply that the scientific method isn't an excellent tool. This viewpoint is only for the purpose of showing that firsthand human experience can be as good or better than relying on the scientific method alone, and to provide the foundation for considering firsthand human experiences as valid evidence. To add to this thread one might want to propose certain ways that we can evaluate firsthand experiences by placing them within certain contexts, or discussing how much weight should be given to claims of firsthand experiences. For example, at what point does the the weight of firsthand experience equal the weight of objective scientific evidence?

 

[trainedobserver]

A firsthand human experience is limited in its usefulness in proportion to how much that experience can be shared. If the experience can be repeated and examined by others the usefulness of any data obtained in the experience increases exponentially. Given what we know about human perception, unique or anomalous experiences are problematic and prove to be less useful in the generation of real knowledge than experiences that can repeated thereby enabling them to be experienced and studied by a variety of people. This is why knowledge obtained through the scientific method is more reliable than information derived from anecdotal evidence.

 

[pixelsmith]

Well stated trainedobserver.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Oh shit, I hate kilts and haggis and Hollywood movies that make everyone from Scotland red of hair and blue of half-face. I am not a true Scotsman. (I had to check that link cos funnily enough I'd never heard 'the no true scotsman' thing before)

 

[Randall]

A firsthand human experience is limited in its usefulness in proportion to how much that experience can be shared. If the experience can be repeated and examined by others the usefulness of any data obtained in the experience increases exponentially. Given what we know about human perception, unique or anomalous experiences are problematic and prove to be less useful in the generation of real knowledge than experiences that can repeated thereby enabling them to be experienced and studied by a variety of people. This is why knowledge obtained through the scientific method is more reliable than information derived from anecdotal evidence.

First off, our firsthand experiences are extremely useful to ourselves as individuals on a regular basis and form a large part of a proven knowledge base that allows us to function on a daily basis. Secondly, it isn't necessary that we share the exact experience with another person in order for it to be useful because other people can and do have similar experiences on their own and they can and do come to the same conclusions on their own. Then we tend to share our experiences by creating reports, and when a majority of reports contain similar information, we tend to accept that the picture that is formed is reasonably accurate. The same process is used in the sciences when an experiment or study cannot be repeated with perfect precision, for example when it involves transient phenomena ( like the weather ) and/or subjective data ( like medical assessments ). Multiple independent reports from separate observations are studied to determine the most reasonable outcome or course of action.

As this applies to UFO reports. When looking at the whole pool of reports it may not be possible to tell exactly which reports represent UFOs ( alien craft ), but it can be determined statistically that as reports from reasonable people accumulate it becomes increasingly unreasonable to deny that the phenomenon is real. In other words, logic seems to dictate that at some point, the margin of error assigned to firsthand experiences becomes equal to or less than the margin of error made during the study of material evidence. For example the firsthand reports of a group of highly experienced pilots might be considered more reliable than the metalurgical analysis of a piece of funny looking metal.

 

[trainedobserver]

For some reason I am reminded of the story of the man walking down the stairway who encounters a coiled rope he mistakes for a snake. In his haste to avoid the snake he leaps from the window to his death. His firsthand experience was one of a snake, but the reality was quite different. If the next five people who come down the stairs mistake the coiled rope for a snake also, it would neither justify the first man's response nor comfort his widow.

 

[nameless]

I hate all this science shit, all this "proving" stuff with "data" and "facts". Cant we just go along with a gut feeling ana story?

 

[mike]

The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein

NASA - Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration

 

[Randall]

For some reason I am reminded of the story of the man walking down the stairway who encounters a coiled rope he mistakes for a snake. In his haste to avoid the snake he leaps from the window to his death. His firsthand experience was one of a snake, but the reality was quite different. If the next five people who come down the stairs mistake the coiled rope for a snake also, it would neither justify the first man's response nor comfort his widow.

Thanks for your Parable of The One True Method. I'm suddenly reminded of another story by Cheech and Chong about two men who happen upon a pile of dog crap. To make sure it's dog crap they stop and analyze it by feeling it, touching it, smelling it and eating it, and in the end conclude that ... yup it's dog crap alright ... "Good thing we didn't step in it." These two represent the kind of people who think you have to analyze everything rather than rely on experience. Ironically it also illustrates how firsthand experience can prove something beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[SRL+]

It was two dogs.

 

[trainedobserver]

This viewpoint is only for the purpose of showing that firsthand human experience can be as good or better than relying on the scientific method alone, and to provide the foundation for considering firsthand human experiences as valid evidence.

You present a false argument. Application of the scientific method relies entirely on firsthand human experience. It is nothing more than a systematic approach to obtaining knowledge through firsthand human experience.

Are you trying to argue for example that the act of a person telling a tale of seeing an apparition or having some other anomalous experience should be taken to be the production of reliable information that can be acted upon and considered knowledge?

 

[trainedobserver]

A couple once house-sat for us. When we got back I was told the house was haunted by a ghost who closed doors and banged around in the kitchen at night. They were genuinely disturbed and had slept little. This couple's experience was that of sharing the house with a loud invisible prankster. "Could that be true?", I thought. We had lived in the house for a couple of years and I had never suspected such a thing.

After considering the possibilities and arriving at a hypothesis I was able to test it and conclude that in all reality they most likely heard the ice in the ice maker drop at 2 in the morning and saw or heard a door close when the AC turned on and the door was ajar in the master bedroom. I've witnessed this myself and at first glance it does look spooky. I've been up all night and heard the ice maker unload in the otherwise silent house from the bedroom and it can startle you depending on how jumpy you are. After speaking to them again it became obvious to us all that the house was not haunted.

Human perception and its frailties can only be overcome through a systematic method of inquiry that takes into account those limitations along with any assumptions and variables that might be present. The scientific method is an attempt to reduce the number of assumptions that have to be made and to understand the variables that effect the outcome of an event and it relies entirely on firsthand human experience.

 

[trainedobserver]

The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein
NASA - Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration

Very nice. Yes, Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist, a scientist. NASA is founded on and fueled by science. Science IS the intelligent use of human experience to produce something called knowledge.

The real question here then is "What is knowledge?" "What qualifies as knowledge?" "How can I know something?"

 

[pixelsmith]

Very nice. Yes, Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist, a scientist. NASA is founded on and fueled by science. Science IS the intelligent use of human experience to produce something called knowledge.

The real question here then is "What is knowledge?" "What qualifies as knowledge?" "How can I know something?"

I think that is where common sense comes in...ie: it is common sense that our planet would warm up if it was coming out of an ice age.

 

[exo_doc]

The real question here then is "What is knowledge?" "What qualifies as knowledge?" "How can I know something?"

OUCH! Brain hurt bad!....Brain hurt real bad.....
.
.
.

 

[trainedobserver]

OUCH! Brain hurt bad!....Brain hurt real bad.....

But that is the fundamental question. What should be the standards for taking something on board as something you know?

 

[trainedobserver]

I think that is where common sense comes in...ie: it is common sense that our planet would warm up if it was coming out of an ice age.

Common sense is defined as sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

The question on the table is how are facts established? How is something determined to be knowledge that can acted on as opposed to false information which should not be acted on? How does one perceive the difference between a fact and a falsehood?

Human experience in the realm of Earth's climatic cycles for example, is severely limited due to long cycle times and short life spans. The question naturally arises, "How might we then gain insight into what those cycles are and were we are in the cycle?"

 

[exo_doc]

But that is the fundamental question. What should be the standards for taking something on board as something you know?

I remember having discussions along this line in college about what exactly constitutes knowledge, the definition of knowledge, etc. My brain hurt then too.
To me, it's self evident what knowledge is, much like love or pain or a pretty day. You just know.
That's not very scientific or heavily philosophical, but there it is.

 

[trainedobserver]

To me, it's self evident what knowledge is, much like love or pain or a pretty day. You just know.

But it isn't self evident and you don't "just know." That is the whole point.

For something to be considered knowledge in the classic sense it must be justified, true, and believed. If someone has an unjustified belief, that isn't true knowledge. If the reason for a belief (the sky is blue due to nitrogen in the atmosphere) is based on something that is true (the presence and properties of nitrogen and its interaction with light) then it can be considered knowledge. Without some standard for what you accept as fact you are left without any filter for falsehood and its consequences. "Seems right to me." wasn't an overly used standard on the Apollo program for example.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Or 'incorrect knowledge'? 'Faulty knowledge'? Is it as valid to define 'knowledge' as true or not? For example, someone could claim vast knowledge of scientology beliefs and according to me those beliefs are false but the knowledge of the false info exists? Or am I missing the point of the discussion?