The One True Method

[trainedobserver]

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?

I think for the sake of the discussion lets say we are talking about how to tell reliable knowledge from unreliable knowledge or falsehood.

For example: Are the claims of "revealed knowledge" in the form of prophetic visions, channeling, or Ouija boards something you readily take on board as established fact or something you now know?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Got ya. I figured I needed that clarified but maybe I was the sole person who required that. It happens!

 

[trainedobserver]

Got ya. I figured I needed that clarified but maybe I was the sole person who required that. It happens!

It all gets down to the process you employ to hedge your bets so that when you gamble that something or other is true you have some reasonable expectation of it being so. Some people have a process and some don't. Some people use critical thinking for some parts of their lives and not others.

The argument that raw human experience produces reliable knowledge is flawed. There must be a process, a method, a technique of applied reason that gets employed by the experiencer to validate their experience beyond the simple experiencing of the event.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

And gambling itself is a relevant example in that gamblers often view the bare facts with ridiculous optimism - they are utterly lying to themselves but at that moment, the brain goes along with the temporary insanity. So, the odds are the odds and it's the way people view those same odds that differentiates the gamblers from the rest. A narrow but interesting example.

 

[Randall]

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?

Not really, and for more than one reason. The application of the scientific method can only be said to rely entirely on firsthand human experience within the context that ultimately all our experiences are firsthand ( nobody else can experience our own experiences for us ). However outside that context, scientific advancement clearly shows that much is credited to the progress made by people who came before "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" ( Isaac Newton ). The scientific method doesn't reinvent the wheel every time it wants to use the knowledge gained toward the discovery of something new, and that would be the only way it could conceivably rely entirely on firsthand experience. Clearly there are times when it relies on secondhand, third-hand and other information passed down over the years. Another reason that it doesn't rely entirely on firsthand experience is because there are aspects of science that prevent us from having firsthand access to the events being studied. For example they may be on a very small scale and our experience of it is filtered through a machine, perhaps a scanning electron microscope, which builds up an image that is impossible for us to experience in real time or directly. Similarly, we depend on information relayed from space probes to provide data from distant locations. No human has experienced the Martian surface firsthand yet , but we can still apply the scientific method to the data being relayed back from the Curiosity rover. Still another reason, and one of the most widely used, is that in medicine, doctors often rely on the information supplied by their patients, or from experiments with lab animals. They usually do not experience the medication and/or the symptoms firsthand.

To address your question: "Are you trying to argue for example that the actof 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?" There are two problems with the question itself. First, it is what is called a loaded question, the offending noun being the word "tale" often construed to mean fiction, gossip or a falsehood. The second is that the word "knowledge" is not quantified ( What kind of knowledge are we talking about ). So my answer will first ignore the implied bias in the use of the word "tale" and assume knowledge to be synonymous with accurate information. Given these assumptions I would say "No." We should not always take things for granted simply because someone tells it to us. I believe that I have made that quite clear already. What I am saying is that our interpretation of firsthand experiences can be and often are correct, and even when faced with something unusual, it is still possible for us, because of our intellectual capacity, to analyze the situation and develop a hypotheses that also turns out to be correct. Therefore assuming we are not dealing with a fabrication, a firsthand report of a firsthand experience is likely to contain a certain amount of accurate information, and that when we compare that information to other information, including information that may have been gained using machines and the scientific method, it may in fact be as good or better. I've already explained why, but for the sake of convenience, the reason is because the accuracy of any information collected is dependent on the capabilities of the data collectors. If the data collectors used in a scientific experiment have less capability than that of several observers, the observers are going to have more accurate information.

 

[trainedobserver]

What I am saying is that our interpretation of firsthand experiences can be and often are correct, and even when faced with something unusual, it is still possible for us, because of our intellectual capacity, to analyze the situation and develop a hypotheses that also turns out to be correct.

That is an assumption. If you talk to a policeman, I am willing to bet they will disagree with you there.

You want to develop hypotheses? Are they testable? If so you are employing at least part of the scientific method in doing so.

Therefore assuming we are not dealing with a fabrication, a firsthand report of a firsthand experience is likely to contain a certain amount of accurate information, and that when we compare that information to other information, including information that may have been gained using machines and the scientific method, it may in fact be as good or better. I've already explained why, but for the sake of convenience, the reason is because the accuracy of any information collected is dependent on the capabilities of the data collectors. If the data collectors used in a scientific experiment have less capability than that of several observers, the observers are going to have more accurate information ... it's just that simple.

You may assume an interpretation of firsthand experience is true and assume that some of the information is correct and that the information of other firsthand experiences you compare it to are correct, but you've got a lot of assumptions there. It would be nice if there were some way to reduce the number of assumptions. I wonder how we could do that? Has anyone addressed this problem in the past I wonder?

You want what exactly? The scientific community to accept the interpretations of UFO experiencers based solely on the strength of numbers? X number of people think that Y is true about phenomena Z, therefore it must be? It doesn't work that way.

I have to wonder what you think the scientific method actually might be. The application of the method requires nothing but a human being to make observations and an event to be studied. Machines vs. humans has nothing whatsoever to do it.

I honestly think you are over complicating the matter.

 

[trainedobserver]

It is has been my personal experience that those who "invest credence and faith in unproven facts" are bound to be disappointed, used, and abused. The way, the methodology, the steps used in which you establish what is an "unproven fact" and a "proven fact" is of critical importance. If that methodology is faulty it will produce faulty results. We need only look at the products and the results to determine the effectiveness of the methodology in reducing error. Doubt, testing, and controlled experimentation in the form of science produced the wonders of modern medicine at a remarkable pace after centuries of superstition and guess work had their turn.

 

[Randall]

It is has been my personal experience that those who "invest credence and faith in unproven facts" are bound to be disappointed, used, and abused. The way, the methodology, the steps used in which you establish what is an "unproven fact" and a "proven fact" is of critical importance. If that methodology is faulty it will produce faulty results. We need only look at the products and the results to determine the effectiveness of the methodology in reducing error. Doubt, testing, and controlled experimentation in the form of science produced the wonders of modern medicine at a remarkable pace after centuries of superstition and guess work had their turn.

Science is an excellent tool. We're not disputing that at all. What we're doing here is using logic and example to reveal the other side of the coin, the side that is rarely admitted to exist by those who promote the myth that science is infallible and human experience is so prone to error that we all need Velcro to fasten our shoes. One of the best questions you asked in a previous post that may help us advance the discussion was, "It would be nice if there were some way to reduce the number of assumptions. I wonder how we could do that? Has anyone addressed this problem in the past I wonder?" Assuming that you aren't being rhetorical, that is an excellent question. By combining reports of firsthand experiences with investigative procedure and applying the science of statistics, there are ways to extrapolate with reasonable accuracy the answers to some questions, including the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ).

 

[trainedobserver]

Science is an excellent tool. We're not disputing that at all. What we're doing here is using logic and example to reveal the other side of the coin, the side that is rarely admitted to exist by those who promote the myth that science is infallible and human experience is so prone to error that we all need Velcro to fasten our shoes.

I know of no one that says science is infallible. You are inventing an argument that doesn't really exist. Like I said before, you present a false argument.

By combining reports of firsthand experiences with investigative procedure and applying the science of statistics, there are ways to extrapolate with reasonable accuracy the answers to some questions, including the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ).

Sounds like you may have already formed a conclusion.

 

[Randall]

I know of no one that says science is infallible. You are inventing an argument that doesn't really exist. Like I said before, you present a false argument.
Sounds like you may have already formed a conclusion.

I've not presented a false argument. Perhaps however I haven't been clear enough and that has led to a misunderstanding. The word "infallible" may not always be the exact word used, but the skeptics so frequently extol the virtues of science while emphasizing the frailty of humans, that the resulting effect is the implied infallibility of science even if it is not explicitly stated. If you haven't heard these kinds of arguments before then you haven't engaged in many debates on the subject with skeptics or watched the videos they post in support of their position. But I have. My opening post here is a direct quote from one such exchange ( "The scientific method is the only way we can know for sure ..." ). Saying that the scientific method is the only way we can know for sure, certainly implies that it is infallible. And below is a video example of a notable scientific personality ranting on much in the fashion I've just described. I'll grant that it has some entertainment value, but when examined from a more discerning perspective it is clearly superficial, glib, and mocking. As is typical of the skeptic's position on alien visitation, he begins with an out of context interpretation of the word UFO, moves on to the frailty of the human mind and extols the virtues of science as if it were the polar opposite of firsthand experience in terms of reliability.

 

[trainedobserver]

I've not presented a false argument. Perhaps however I haven't been clear enough and that has led to a misunderstanding.

I'm sorry, but you are creating a false argument. You seem to have a misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. This is shown by your attempts to isolate science from human experience itself. Science and the scientific method are nothing more than a way to guide human experience in the discovery of reliable knowledge. It is the best way we have found "to know for sure" or as sure as we can get. Which, anyone not engaging in some hyperbolic nonsense will have to admit is not absolute and open to revision.

It is clearly a "us vs. them" scenario for you. The Skeptics vs. Alien Visitation believers. I honestly feel like that sort of thing is a waste of time and gets us nowhere.

I think your position basically boils down to you wanting to elevate the value and standing of anecdotal evidence. I don't think you are going to get there using this approach. If you were able to provide some reasonable real world example of anecdotal evidence providing the same service as scientific evidence in the performance of some task, the creation of some new product, or the solving of a real world problem you might have a better chance.

The attempt to use anecdotal evidence (accounts of firsthand human experience) as proof of alien visitation is open to a great deal of error and sidesteps the very real problem of varying degrees of human perception. Do you want to use "science" to study anecdotal evidence? That is possible and by your posts I get the idea that is what you propose. Again, the lack of any real argument arises.

By all means use the scientific method to study these accounts. The crucial factor is not to go in trying to prove something but rather to disprove it. Can you formulate a falsifiable hypothesis and can you then test your hypothesis using the data? Are you willing to look at the data with the intent to disprove the assertion that alien visitation is the most probable explanation and accept the results?

 

[Randall]

I'm sorry, but you are creating a false argument. You seem to have a misunderstanding of science and the scientific method ...

First, this issue of the false argument is getting pretty sticky. Let's see if we can work our way through it rather than continuing with an "is" vs "is not" approach. First off what I think what you mean to say is that I've started my discussion on a false premise. You have maintained your position based on the following quote:

"This is shown by your attempts to isolate science from human experience itself."​

So we are led to believe by the above that for you it breaks down like this:

• Everything we perceive is a human experience. ( premise )
• Science is something we perceive. ( premise )
• Therefore science is a human experience. ( conclusion )
• Therefore science can't be isolated from the human experience and therefore the premise of this thread is in error. ( conclusion )

The problem seems to be in your interpretation of the premise which has led you to believe there is a false premise when none exists. Although the above is internally consistent, what we are actually talking about are two separate processes for gathering knowledge, firsthand experience and the scientific method. To assume they are interdependent is faulty and I've dealt with that issue here. To illustrate further:

• The scientific method is a way of gathering knowledge. ( premise )
• Firsthand experience is a way of gathering knowledge. ( premise )
• The scientific method makes use of firsthand experience. ( premise )
• I have gained knowledge through firsthand experience, therefore I must have used the scientific method. ( conclusion & false premise )

So you see, simply because someone acquires knowledge through firsthand experience does not mean that the scientific method has been applied in any way shape or form and this is the primary complaint of the so-called scientific skeptics. Furthermore I've encountered many instances where skeptics refuse to even accept reports based on firsthand experiences as evidence that can be subject to analysis. This is where your last post seems to be making a breakthrough, to quote:

"By all means use the scientific method to study these accounts."​

This is exactly what I'm getting at. But the wrench in the wheel is that certain skeptics refuse to acknowledge that reports based on firsthand experiences count as evidence that can be applied to the scientific method. So what I'm doing here is comparing the information gained from firsthand experience to information gained using science and showing that they both can provide accurate or inaccurate results and therefore there is no reason to exclude one or the other from the process of advancing our knowledge. They should be able to work hand in hand toward the same goal.

 

[boomerang]

All firsthand experience, whether recorded lab data or personal anecdote, would seem to constitute a kind of raw information. Information does not equate to the construction and testing of internal and externally, and logically consistent models. A model in science is deemed successful when it makes testable and repeatable predictions, yada yada....

I don't have a problem with the scientific method as the best set of tools we currently have in understanding what to make of raw data arriving (always) by way of human sensory channels. "Scientific method" is a somewhat broad term, depending on operational definitions used, etc. An operational definition amounts to permitted labeling of things according to their documented behaviors. There is certainly more here that is way beyond my grasp. But the basis of science is manipulating variables under controlled conditions to effect a predicted response.

However, what we may be seeing is the scientific method invalidating itself, as as nature will seemingly not allow us to watch the play without becoming actors ourselves. There seems evidence of acausal effects beyond the quantum--on the macro scale. Very strange.

Once the time honored principle of cause and effect is revealed as an illusion created by deeper forces, science is shaken to its foundations. I am under the impression that this is indeed where we are headed. This is a long winded way of way of saying that I mostly agree with the proposition of this post. Before deciding who is and is not a "True Scotsman", we must first have an agreed-upon operational definition thereof based on characteristics and behaviors. But our best methods have limits. I would disagree with the premise that capabilities of the scientific method are limitless.

 

[trainedobserver]

You pretty it up however you like, I think this boils down to an attempt to elevate anecdotal evidence above its proven value in an attempt to support a foregone conclusion.

 

[Randall]

You pretty it up however you like, I think this boils down to an attempt to elevate anecdotal evidence above its proven value in an attempt to support a foregone conclusion.

Firsthand experience is not anecdotal evidence. A firsthand report based on firsthand evidence may technically qualify as anecdotal, but since my earlier examples have demonstrated that information from firsthand experience can be as accurate or more so than that gained from the scientific method, a scientific report may be no more or less accurate than a report based on a firsthand experience. It all depends on the situation. As for using this argument to support a foregone conclusion. Should we not try to support our conclusions with logic and example? What would you prefer? Blind faith?

 

[trainedobserver]

Firsthand experience is not anecdotal evidence. A firsthand report based on firsthand evidence may technically qualify as anecdotal, but since my earlier examples have demonstrated that information from firsthand experience can be as accurate or more so than that gained from the scientific method, a scientific report may be no more or less accurate than a report based on a firsthand experience.

You are talking about taking someone's account (or report) of their firsthand experience are you not?

It all depends on the situation.

It depends on something called the quality of the messenger and all that it implies.

As for using this argument to support a foregone conclusion. Should we not try to support our conclusions with logic and example? What would you prefer? Blind faith?

What was your conclusion of alien visitation based on in the first place?

Statistical analysis of "firsthand experience" will only tell you so much. It will not tell you the true source the apparitions of UFOs, aliens, gods, spirits, etc. that people may or may not have experienced in the first place.

People use "firsthand experience" to justify the belief in the magic power of Ouija Boards, faith healing, haunted houses, and God speaking to them.

 

[Randall]

You are talking about taking someone's account (or report) of their firsthand experience are you not?

It depends on something called the quality of the messenger and all that it implies.

What was your conclusion of alien visitation based on in the first place?

Statistical analysis of "firsthand experience" will only tell you so much. It will not tell you the true source the apparitions of UFOs, aliens, gods, spirits, etc. that people may or may not have experienced in the first place.

People use "firsthand experience" to justify the belief in the magic power of Ouija Boards, faith healing, haunted houses, and God speaking to them.

All perfectly fair points. Simply because firsthand experience can provide accurate information doesn't mean that it always does, and when it comes to UFOs there are a lot of holes that are filled by extrapolation rather than from actual experience. When you ask what I base my own conclusion on, it is a combination of the experiences and work of others and my own firsthand experience. However even in the absence of my own sighting, I would still say that the amount of good information out there makes it reasonable to believe we are being visited. But please take note here; reasonable to believe and being certain are two separate things. I would probably not be certain if had I not seen one for myself. Also, when I use the word "alien" I mean alien to our civilization and that is not necessarily synonymous with space aliens. Although an extrasolar intelligence still makes the most sense, I haven't seen any firsthand reports or seemingly genuine anecdotes to backup that theory, and I put little credence in the claims of contactees. My own experience took place right here on Earth. I didn't see the UFO come down from space and it didn't leave by going up into space. I don't know where it came from. I just know it wasn't one of ours because of its appearance and performance.

 

[trainedobserver]

I just know it wasn't one of ours because of its appearance and performance.

You know this because you are a expert on cutting edge aviation technology and have contacts in the field that keep you updated on the latest developments?

I knew about plasma displays, LED television, fiber optics, and many other things, some of which have not materialized in the market yet, long before they became known to the general public because I have worked in high-tech industry since 1978. I have sat in on lectures where "the next ten years" were laid out and low and behold, it happened as forecast. I say this not to boast or make myself out to be someone who actually knows anything about UFOs. I say that to illustrate that unless you are in a position to know, or know someone who is, you have no basis for the statement ("I just know it wasn't one of ours because of its appearance and performance.") other than wishful thinking. <---I wish I could make that blink. It is called the mistake of the initiate, having been given some small amount of information, the initiate presumes to know more than he does, and errors accordingly.

You must face the uncomforatable reality my friend:
“Something is seen, but one doesn't know what.” Carl Jung, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky.

 

[trainedobserver]

NOTE TO THE FORUM ADMINISTRATION: Why does this thing put links into postings that go absolutely nowhere? It is annoying as all hell and distracts from REAL links someone might care to include that lead to real information.

 

[Randall]

You know this because you are a expert on cutting edge aviation technology and have contacts in the field that keep you updated on the latest developments?

I knew about plasma displays, LED television, fiber optics, and many other things, some of which have not materialized in the market yet, long before they became known to the general public because I have worked in high-tech industry since 1978. I have sat in on lectures where "the next ten years" were laid out and low and behold, it happened as forecast. I say this not to boast or make myself out to be someone who actually knows anything about UFOs. I say that to illustrate that unless you are in a position to know, or know someone who is, you have no basis for the statement ("I just know it wasn't one of ours because of its appearance and performance.") other than wishful thinking. <---I wish I could make that blink. It is called the mistake of the initiate, having been given some small amount of information, the initiate presumes to know more than he does, and errors accordingly.

You must face the uncomforatable reality my friend:
“Something is seen, but one doesn't know what.” Carl Jung, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky.

You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to figure out that what I saw was no aircraft or that no aircraft can perform what this object did. It's just that simple. This thing was a glowing ball of light. No wings, no fuselage, no tail section, no visible means of propulsion. I'd seen it ( or rather we had seen it ) more than once over the course of the evening doing precise maneuvers that make a natural explanation extremely unlikely. In the morning it rose up out of the forest, hovered momentarily, and instantly accelerated north from my position covering a distance of over 25 Km in about 1 second, leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake. I was able to determine its proximity using landmarks of known distance, and when it made its departure, it was light enough outside to see the surrounding landscape and I was standing outside looking directly across the valley at it. What earthly technology can possibly explain that back in 1975 ... or even now for that matter ... or even theoretically in the next 20-50 years? By all means please explain it to me if you can.