The Problem with Skeptics

[ProphetofOccam]

Unfortunately for some skeptics, the scientific principles of probability in the Null Hypothesis are often overlooked. It is typical of them to water it down to suit their own bias in a given debate. This is where most skeptics fail because they know that if they accept the scientific principles of the Null Hypothesis rather than their own watered down and biased version, then evidence is no longer purely material. But the slope gets even slipperier. There is always a margin of error in every scientific experiment. No tolerance is perfect. No material 100% pure. No set of conditions is 100% duplicable. It varies widely from tolerances that are down to angstrom units to variables that are literally as unpredictable as the weather ( Meteorology ). Then there is medicine where anecdotal evidence is used as part of the evidence for determining a course of treatment. Then we move into psychology, the status of which is still under debate. In the end, when the situation is objectively examined, what we tend to think of a "solid science" is far from justified in holding itself up as the purveyors of certainty in truth except where pure logic ( like math ) is concerned ( but even that has more to do with philosophy ). What science can do is make reasonable claims for what the probable truths are based on empirical evidence ( evidence gained by the senses ).

I'm going to keep this reined in by using binary logic, just for the sake of the response. 0 is false, 1 is true.

I'd argue you're running a little broad with the concept of the null hypothesis, here. It generally applies to controlled experiments with a starting value of 0, speaking in binary abstracts (or, predicting for a negative). The causality for the state of the 0 can't be proven or disproven, but is observable and quantifiable, none the less. We can identify it as "o" -- we can identify it as null. Therefor, we can also identify its change from "0." we are also aware that it can change state. The only thing we can't assume is whether or not the lack of state change is genuine or, if genuine, otherwise meaningful. Its only function is to allow for the implied proof of a negative, not the scientific validation of a phenomenon in the absence of testable data -- the entire premise rests on the idea that the data is testable and that the hypothesis assumes for 0.

The absence of testable data is what I'm referring to. You can't test an eyewitness testimony, for instance. You can't take what you've heard and review it in anyway. You can either choose to believe it and use the information given to guide your search for something that can be reviewed (tested), or you can disregard it in light of other data that makes the testimony unlikely. In that case, you can state that you believe that the truth value of the testimony is 0, which is a null hypothesis, but even when you compare it to the data that lead to your null state hypothesis, you haven't resolved anything -- the state of the truthfulness can't change and thus can't be observed to change (leading to a solution). If you assume the truth value of the testimony is 1, which is a standard hypothesis (predicting a particular positive state change), all you can do is follow up. In this case, when do you decide that you have spent enough time attempting to replicate the reported conditions of a phenomenon, with no similar phenomenon taking place, before you decide that the 1 value has changed state to a 0? That determination is highly subjective, especially given that there would be so many unknown factors regarding an unknown phenomenon. In either case, your ability to even determine the value of a hypothesis (whether the truth value should be considered 1 or 0) is realistically impossible on any objective level. Much of the evidence, and the hypotheses (see our Alien physiology thread), for the paranormal is untestable in this way.

You can't debate something for which you can't even observe a state change, nor can you debate something for which you've not enough information to determine which state is which to begin with. What, exactly, would you even be debating at this point? The only thing left -- the subject summation of the nature of states, which is objectively arbitrary.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Observations found in UFO reports can be as valid as observations made of other transient phenomena ( such as the weather ), therefore in an unbiased argument some of these observations should qualify as empirical evidence that is of equal quality to that of other kinds of observations.

This is a pretty good comparison to follow up what I'm trying to get to.

The weather has predictable states that depends upon various stimuli. When one or more of those stimuli are observable, the nature of the state of the weather can be predicted (ex: a storm is blowing in from the Northwest, I live Southeast of the current storm zone, my hypothesis is that it will rain at a time reflective of the speed of the storm). Unforeseen stimuli can alter the state of the weather, causing new developments, and possibly falsifying the original hypothesis.

We know nothing about UFO's. We know where they are reported, but we don't know why they are where they are. We can't predict, with any testable level of certainty, or probability, when and how a UFO will appear. Due to this fact, we can't form a hypothesis, null or otherwise, regarding the state of the UFO, as we have no idea what, if any, stimuli affect UFO's, nor are we even capable of determining the "state" of a UFO (since it is unidentified, all we can say is an object is unidentified).

Even in locations where people claim to see UFO's with predictable regularity, many times reviewers will go to these locations, replicating the described conditions, and experience nothing. Does that falsify the original claim? No. It can't. We don't know enough about the phenomenon to determine why it wasn't there -- including whether or not it wasn't there because it just doesn't exist.

Some of these things can be tested in the way I described in my other post, and perhaps the observer will witness an explicable phenomenon that resembles what an eyewitness described. However, that doesn't prove or disprove the nature of the state of the original observation -- just because the two phenomena are similar doesn't mean they are the same. Having not seen the original phenomenon, the reviewer is unqualified to make declarations based on the state of the original phenomenon and whether or not that state is equal to the explicable phenomenon. Is it more likely in that case that what the witness saw was the explicable phenomenon? Sure. But, if the witness denies that explanation, you're back to indeterminate values and a realistically untestable hypothesis.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Keep in mind that I neglected to list the possibility that a reviewer will replicate the conditions of a phenomenon with the original witness and experience the same phenomenon as predicted. It wasn't forgotten, it's just not important.

As I've said, the majority of the scientific community are aware that inexplicable phenomena are observed in the skies. All the review would produce, in this example, is previously accepted and understood data: unexplained things are witnessed in the skies. While the reviewer can change the state, in this extremely rare case, of the truth value of the eyewitness testimony from 0 to 1, that now quantifiable evidence doesn't accomplish anything. We haven't learned anything that we didn't know before the experiment, so what is the value in carrying out the experiment?

Step one in the development of my skepticism: Why is the above scenario so rare? And, when the above scenario does play out, why is it always just a light in the sky? Why s it never the full-on craft that people describe?

 

[mike]

I suspect that in our current state of existance, trying to describe whats actually happening is akin to a goldfish trying to understand its world. The limitations of its environment will always be the filter through which it sees it

 

[Randall]

I'm going to keep this reined in by using binary logic, just for the sake of the response. 0 is false, 1 is true.

I'd argue you're running a little broad with the concept of the null hypothesis, here. It generally applies to controlled experiments with a starting value of 0, speaking in binary abstracts (or, predicting for a negative). The causality for the state of the 0 can't be proven or disproven, but is observable and quantifiable, none the less. We can identify it as "o" -- we can identify it as null. Therefor, we can also identify its change from "0." we are also aware that it can change state. The only thing we can't assume is whether or not the lack of state change is genuine or, if genuine, otherwise meaningful. Its only function is to allow for the implied proof of a negative, not the scientific validation of a phenomenon in the absence of testable data -- the entire premise rests on the idea that the data is testable and that the hypothesis assumes for 0.

The concept of the Null Hypothesis that I'm "running a little broad" with is described fairly well in the Wikipedia article here: Null hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No need to "rein it in" unless you find some specific error with the article, in which case you could provide references.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Well, you seemed to think it referred to the consideration of phenomena in the absence of testable data. I think you knew it just meant that one could attempt to support a negative hypothesis through experimentation, but were unclear what i meant when i said "untestable hypothesis."

The Wikipedia article describes what I described -- experimentation with a negative, or null, hypothesis (I believe x phenomena will have NO effect on the state of Y).

All i meant by reined in is that there could be situations in which you have a null hypothesis, but there are many likely results of experimentation, in the case that the null is false. By sticking to binary, we were just assuming the example had two modes of possibility (like something is either true of false). It would have required too much explanation, otherwise. I wasn't saying your definition needed to be reined in.

Again, I think a misunderstanding took place over I meant by "untestable hypotheses."

 

[Randall]

This is a pretty good comparison to follow up what I'm trying to get to ... The weather has predictable states that depends upon various stimuli ... We know nothing about UFO's ...

Wrong. You think we know nothing about UFOs. But that is only based on what you believe constitutes "knowledge". If we examine this carefully we find that the assumption that we know "nothing" is completely in error.

We know where they are reported, but we don't know why they are where they are. We can't predict, with any testable level of certainty, or probability, when and how a UFO will appear. Due to this fact, we can't form a hypothesis, null or otherwise, regarding the state of the UFO, as we have no idea what, if any, stimuli affect UFO's, nor are we even capable of determining the "state" of a UFO (since it is unidentified, all we can say is an object is unidentified).

Partially correct. Your response ( knowing where they are reported ) nullifies your "we know nothing" claim straight off . We also know that in some cases observation, corroborated by instrumentation reveal that UFOs are material objects matching the description of a craft ( a transportation device ) with performance capabilities beyond those of any manmade machine produced during the period of the reports. This is far from being "unidentified". These craft were classed in UFO reports as "Unknowns". Logically, unknown craft beyond anything capable of human engineering can amount to only one thing, something alien to our civilization.

Even in locations where people claim to see UFO's with predictable regularity, many times reviewers will go to these locations, replicating the described conditions, and experience nothing. Does that falsify the original claim? No. It can't. We don't know enough about the phenomenon to determine why it wasn't there -- including whether or not it wasn't there because it just doesn't exist.

Some of these things can be tested in the way I described in my other post, and perhaps the observer will witness an explicable phenomenon that resembles what an eyewitness described. However, that doesn't prove or disprove the nature of the state of the original observation -- just because the two phenomena are similar doesn't mean they are the same. Having not seen the original phenomenon, the reviewer is unqualified to make declarations based on the state of the original phenomenon and whether or not that state is equal to the explicable phenomenon. Is it more likely in that case that what the witness saw was the explicable phenomenon? Sure. But, if the witness denies that explanation, you're back to indeterminate values and a realistically untestable hypothesis.

The hypothesis used in the study alluded to earlier was based on a diversion from known parameters, so using a Null Hypothesis we might say that the Unknowns are actually mundane objects or phenomena, and the falsifiability of that hypothesis would then that be, if enough parameters can be established for the Unknowns to eliminate with reasonable certainty all known mundane objects or phenomenon, then the Null Hypothesis can be said to be falsified. The Battelle Memorial Institute did one such study using data from several thousand reports screened by USAF technical specialists ( qualified people ). The results were clear but immediately the scientific politicking and denials set in. Skeptics typically default to the biased conclusions that the study was essentially ordered to come to, even though the data actually indicates entirely the opposite.

Setting the Battelle Memorial Institute study aside, my view of the use of science in studying UFOs gets me in trouble on both sides of the fence. First off, science is presently a poor tool to use in ufology for all the reasons you've mentioned, particularly the situation that we appear to be dealing with a non-natural phenomena. Although natural transient phenomena can be studied scientifically e.g. the weather, studying non-natural phenomena is substantially more challenging because it has a mind of its own and has to make its presence known before it can be observed. This makes controlled experimentation ( as you alluded to earlier ) much harder to implement. In the case of UFOs, it's almost impossible. Consequently, USI ( my group ) advocates the use of science in ufology only when it can be properly applied, and the rest of the time to examine the problem using Critical Thinking. This is a perfectly acceptable process for helping us advance toward the truth.

Learn the Elements and Standards

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Partially correct. Your response ( knowing where they are reported ) nullifies your "we know nothing" claim straight off . We also know that in some cases observation, corroborated by instrumentation reveal that UFOs are material objects matching the description of a craft ( a transportation device ) with performance capabilities beyond those of any manmade machine produced during the period of the reports. This is far from being "unidentified". These craft were classed in UFO reports as "Unknowns". Logically, unknown craft beyond anything capable of human engineering can amount to only one thing, something alien to our civilization.

We know where they are in one-off situations that are almost never corroborated. That isn't really knowing anything. "Sometimes they are some places." We just know where someone claims to have seen one, but that's not good enough for science. if pleasing science isn't the goal, then the entire conversation is pointless.

Photographs are almost nothing. They are impossible to completely corroborate, even when a specialist in photography or video reviews the material, all they can say is that the material doesn't appear to be doctored. They can't and don't make definite statements. Any aeronautics specialist who claims to draw definitive conclusions from the viewing of video or photo evidence isn't going to be taken seriously by his/her peers -- this is why this type of thing doesn't go anywhere. You can't make definitive claims based on a video of a craft, anymore than a doctor can make definitive diagnostic claims based on a video. The major difference being that the subject matter being viewed by doctor contains far more known variables.

When a photo or video is reviewed, it can be classified as an unknown, but it's not definitive enough to matter. There are instances where people have gotten this same level of qualification from intentionally doctored photographs. Science would never accept, on faith, the photographic evidence of anything. Even in cases where endangered or thought to be extinct animals are caught on trail-cams, nobody's happy until the thing is discovered and catalogued officially.

Like eyewitness testimony, a photograph is only an indicator of where to look for actual evidence. These aren't MY rules, based on MY definition of knowledge, man. My rules state "1. I don't really care if they exist, or not. Honestly. 2. Just keep tellin' the stories." But when we are talking about skeptics and science, and we almost always are, those are the rules in the book, fella's.

The hypothesis used in the study alluded to earlier was based on a diversion from known parameters, so using a Null Hypothesis we might say that the Unknowns are actually mundane objects or phenomena, and the falsifiability of that hypothesis would then that be, if enough parameters can be established for the Unknowns to eliminate with reasonable certainty all known mundane objects or phenomenon, then the Null Hypothesis can be said to be falsified.

People already accept that there are unidentified objects, which is all such a study, and hypothesis, could conclude.

Conventional science doesn't dedicate the time to UFO research that it dedicates to astronomy and archeology, because astronomy and archeology have the capacity for the development of testable hypotheses that will expand the field's knowledge base beyond what is known. No professional review has ever produced documented evidence of what could be inarguably discerned to be a craft or anything else but a light. In the cases where mass sightings and recordings do occur, and the sightings are professionally catalogued (by people who qualify as professionals), the objects typically exhibit behavioural patterns of known phenomena, but deviate in a significant enough manner that they have a reasonable probability of being something else (unidentified). These cases receive attention, but they're just not that valuable from a data standpoint, meaning that there just isn't that much to study that will yield scientifically satisfying results.

Debating whether that's fair, scientific, or logical is senseless. It's the state of events. It is what it is. The biggest complaint scientists, and science-based skeptics have regarding the paranormal as a field of study is the lack of testable hypotheses.

That's what skeptics want. You guys either care about that, or you don't. If you don't, then why care about what skeptics say in the first place?

Make your own journals. Create your own models for validity.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Which is all to say, I jive with your critical thinking deal. If that's what makes you guys happy, run with it. The topic was about skeptics, and my points were regarding those of us who demand scientific answers. Not to say that your addition of that information is off topic, but at one point you seemed to be arguing against me, as a lone entity, and I was speaking from a consensus view.

I think a lot of these discussions start to get snagged up in personal investment, as I feel like your tone began to change a little. Perhaps it was due to the whole misunderstanding of the hypothesis stuff. Maybe it didn't. Regardless, skeptics want science. If you don't always use science, you, and anyone who follows your model, have no reason to care.

 

[pickles]

I think a major issue with skeptics (and, tangentially atheists) is a basic lack of respect for their fellow man. Instead of investigating the actual event, they instead to focus on someone's interpretation of the event, deciding whether the even occurred based on that interpretation. Obviously, we know that people's perceptions tell part of the story, but you cannot decide that so-and-so is a dumbass so what he's talking about can't be true. You must take the human element out of the equation and focus on the objective, as much as possible. Anything else is effectively a backhanded ad-hominem assault.

 

[exo_doc]

Here is an example of my biggest problem I have with skeptics and involves a paper just published in "Nature"....I'll start off with an excerpt;

......."We have big organisms living on land a lot further back than we thought before," said study author Gregory Retallack, a geologist and paleobotanist at the University of Oregon......
However......
.......But the study has faced intense skepticism from several experts in the field ......

If you read the article, Gregory Retallack gives a very good case for such a finding, complete with a large amount of evidence all pointing to life on land beginning much sooner than previously thought.

But the "experts" (wouldn't Retallack be an expert too?) are foaming at the mouth...going so far as to say:
.......have questioned not only the study's scientific validity, but also its acceptance into a prestigious scientific journal.......

My thought on this is: Those so-called "experts" have years of study and thier scientific reputations on the line if this turns out to be true. It could be major egg on their faces.
So naturally they deride and harumph-harumph and yell "poo-poo" to protect themselves and their careers.
Doesn't matter if the findings are true or not! (To them anyway.) I have more than a large suspicion that this happens more often in scientific academia than we would want to know----the suppression of evidence to maintain the status quo.

Check it out for yourself and make up your own mind. Here is the article: Land Life: Fossil Lichen Study Published In Nature Causes Controversy
.
.
.

 

[Randall]

Which is all to say, I jive with your critical thinking deal. If that's what makes you guys happy, run with it. The topic was about skeptics, and my points were regarding those of us who demand scientific answers. Not to say that your addition of that information is off topic, but at one point you seemed to be arguing against me, as a lone entity, and I was speaking from a consensus view.

I think a lot of these discussions start to get snagged up in personal investment, as I feel like your tone began to change a little. Perhaps it was due to the whole misunderstanding of the hypothesis stuff. Maybe it didn't. Regardless, skeptics want science. If you don't always use science, you, and anyone who follows your model, have no reason to care.

​

The problem with skeptics, ( or at least some of them ) is that scientific skeptics default to a scientific position because it's seen by them as the authority, and by association they also see themselves as authorities. Consequently, even though many skeptics have no scientific credentials of their own, they have an easy time quoting science as if it is infallible. Unfortunately for them, as I've already pointed out more than once here, science ( the practice thereof ) is fallible and the scientific community is also prone to problems like those found elsewhere. If skeptics were to be true to themselves, they'd be less concerned with pursuing science and more concerned with doubting the claims of others regardless of the nature of those claims.

However when skeptics mix practice with politics, then certain topics become a target and skeptics hold themselves up as the beacons of truth regarding the way things are, and in doing so are making themselves into hypocrites. The idea of "Scientific Skepticism" is an oxymoron. It's just as bad as calling one's self a "Scientific Believer". Science is not skepticism. Science is neither believing nor doubting. Science is supposed to be a dispassionate process of testing hypotheses using empirical evidence and then applying that knowledge to gain a better understanding of the world around us.

From a purely scientific perspective, whether or not one doubts or believes scientific results is entirely irrelevant. Nevertheless arch-skeptic/scientists are as much to blame for the confusion as arch-skeptic/non-scientists. In a way they are even more to blame because they should know better. At least relatively naive newbies interested in the paranormal have an excuse. It's called curiosity. In contrast, scientist/skeptics are well educated and purport to uphold the practices and principles of their respective professions. However they are just as prone to playing politics as any other special interest group, and consequently we get slogans from them like "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This slogan was a Carl Sagan favorite and it clearly betrays his role as one of the leading members of CSICOP ( now just CSI ). If we took the CSICOP out of Sagan, then from a scientific perspective, extraordinary claims would only require the same kind of evidence as any other kind of claim. It is only skeptical bias that requires science to tack something extra onto established scientific requirements. In a sense, requiring this extra measure to satisfy some skepto-political agenda is just as bad as accepting too little. Either way, dispassionate scientific standards are being compromised and in a scientific setting this makes either approach pseudoscientific.

Not unlike Sagan, I have a personal investment in the way I think ( who doesn't ), but perhaps, unlike Sagan, I won't deny it and I don't confuse that investment with being personally biased because of my beliefs. I've made it my modus operandi to seek out the truth. In this process skepticism and science can be a useful tools, but they're not the only tools. I'm glad you ( ProphetofOccam ) are starting to "jive with the critical thinking deal" because although I may be wrong, I get the impression that you are also more interested in truth than merely being skeptical or rejecting everything that hasn't yet been scientifically proven, and until recently, you've been stuck with only those two options. I suggest that if adopted, you would find critical thinking entirely rational and more suitable to exploring the paranormal and other contentious issues. I invite you to rejoin those who believe that strange things do happen, and that pursuing the truth about them in any rational way that is possible is a worthy avocation.

 

[5tomidnite]

My contribution is that we should quit calling invested disbelievers "skeptics". To me the reality is this. If you're not a "true believer" or a "true disbeliever" then you're a skeptic to one degree or another. I also think we should agree that science at its core is a method of gaining understanding of the universe we live in according to a set of rules. Consequently it has short comings. These rules are made up by people with their own biases and limitations therefor they are subject to failure every now and then in their attempt to determine the truth. That doesn't mean to say I hate science or automatically discount scientifically acquired knowledge. Far from it. It just means that I recognize that it can't answer all questions because some of the rules it operates under sometimes requires its users to accept a false understanding of the univers because it is not up to the task of studying them.

Anyway that's my contribution for what it's worth.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I've been trying to steer clear of distractions of this nature for a few days, so sorry for the lag in response.

Ufology, what I mean by "I jive" with it, is that I understand and appreciate it. If you're uncomfortable with certain concepts being representative of the whole of reality, like science, then you have to create your own standards and models for defining reality. If your model works for you, then it works for me from a discussion standpoint.

Personally, I'm a science guy and I'm always going to be. I've never been given a convincing reason not to be, and I've heard a lot of them. I feel that I've got an extremely good reason to "disbelieve," as it's been put, in most of the forerunners of the paranormal world.

Unlike guys like Randi, though, I understand that there are people who feel they've got every good reason to believe. Whether they've built those reasons out of science or some other means of study does little to change the fact that the way I feel about my position is exactly how they feel about their own.

As a result, I think the primary reason that there "is no debate" is that, when people have different criteria for how their minds are permitted to change, and neither side accepts the other's criteria, then neither mind can change as a result of an exchange of information. That quickly devolves into an aggressive display of disagreement -- a pointless argument -- that basically serves as a means to release the tension caused by the lack of ability to change the other person. If you're not trying to convince the guy you're debating, in this setting, who is it you're trying to convince; if you're not trying to convince anyone, are you sure you're having a debate?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

My thought on this is: Those so-called "experts" have years of study and thier scientific reputations on the line if this turns out to be true. It could be major egg on their faces.
So naturally they deride and harumph-harumph and yell "poo-poo" to protect themselves and their careers.
Doesn't matter if the findings are true or not! (To them anyway.) I have more than a large suspicion that this happens more often in scientific academia than we would want to know----the suppression of evidence to maintain the status quo.

You have to understand that this is what these people do for a living. they get really passionate about it. That said, stating that you believe an article doesn't belong in a journal doesn't necessarily require passion or even venom. Sometimes, studies are published in journals only because the person who authored the study is well known.

The author is an expert, but nobody is an authority -- that's why there is peer review. That's why these studies are published in journals. However, studies are usually heavily vetted -- a sort of pre-review -- before they are published in journals. These reviews are more than other scientists reading a study and deciding whether or not they like it (while the pre-review can consist of this, it usually involves a request for stronger supportive data). Peer review consists of experiment replication, data replication and/or model replication. When these replications don't yield the reported resulting data objectively, peers are going to complain and demand justification. If the data can be easily shown to be broken, fraudulent or otherwise unable to be replicated, peers will complain about the basis for publication.

It's not a mission to maintain the status quo. Literally every scientist, in literally every field, would love to discover something that turns the entire base of knowledge for their discipline on its ear. It's a mission to ensure the accuracy of that knowledge base. Bad information throws gum into the entire works (you could base a study of your own on inaccurate data published in a study in a journal you respect, for example). If all they wanted to do was maintain the status quo, every study in every journal would be met with hostility (they all reveal or confirm new data).

 

[5tomidnite]

Personally, I'm a science guy and I'm always going to be. I've never been given a convincing reason not to be, and I've heard a lot of them. I feel that I've got an extremely good reason to "disbelieve," as it's been put, in most of the forerunners of the paranormal world.

I can sympathize with that. When it comes to paranormal discussions sometimes I doubt both sides to the point of wondering why I bother at all. But I've had experiences that I haven't heard good explanations for so I look to see if either side comes up with a good explanation for these things. If nothing else it's a good way to exercise your "B.S. Detector". As I tell my brother, "Watch the news even if you think it's all lies. Sometimes what people think is important to lie about reveals the truth."

As a result, I think the primary reason that there "is no debate" is that, when people have different criteria for how their minds are permitted to change, and neither side accepts the other's criteria, then neither mind can change as a result of an exchange of information. That quickly devolves into an aggressive display of disagreement -- a pointless argument -- that basically serves as a means to release the tension caused by the lack of ability to change the other person. If you're not trying to convince the guy you're debating, in this setting, who is it you're trying to convince; if you're not trying to convince anyone, are you sure you're having a debate?

A debate is a formal discussion between two parties in the hopes of convincing the audience they are debating in front of the validity of their respective arguments. The two parties don't have to convince each other of anything. So "believers" and "skeptics" don't have to prove anything to each other they just have to prove it to the audience be it a scientific panel, a government body, or the general public.

I love debates. They make my brain feel alive. So I didn't write this response to be contrary. I'm wrote it to remind anyone reading this that debates aren't about the debaters convincing each other it's about them informing their audience.

 

[5tomidnite]

ProphetofOccam's and Ufology's discussion has made me think of something. A lot of times the problem with science isn't science but the reporting of it. I remember years ago a study about insect (don't remember which species) reproduction discovered that rape was often a part of their reproduction process. The reporter who was interviewing the scientist in question was trying to goad him into saying that he thought rape was an acceptable form of reproduction. I assume in an attempt to boost her ratings by making it look like science approved of rape. I remember laughing at her and being impressed at how he kept correcting her saying that all his data showed was that in insect reproduction consent wasn't a determining factor in who reproduced.

So like I said I think sometimes science is often misunderstood because the people reporting science (mostly non-scientists) put a spin on their report rather than just giving you the actual information.

 

[Randall]

... Personally, I'm a science guy and I'm always going to be. I've never been given a convincing reason not to be, and I've heard a lot of them. I feel that I've got an extremely good reason to "disbelieve," as it's been put, in most of the forerunners of the paranormal world ...

There's no reason to discard science. However science in the only tool in the box. It alone does not hold all the cards where truth and reality are concerned, and your own words indicate that we actually agree more than you think on those topics. So simply rewinding to the point where you forget we've had that conversation and choosing again to disagree isn't going to advance your argument. It's not unlike the conversation I have running with one of our religious participants. Every time it gets to the point of a breakthrough, he's suddenly gone a then resurfaces in another thread starting all over with the same old stuff.

Peer review consists of experiment replication, data replication and/or model replication. When these replications don't yield the reported resulting data objectively, peers are going to complain and demand justification. If the data can be easily shown to be broken, fraudulent or otherwise unable to be replicated, peers will complain about the basis for publication. It's not a mission to maintain the status quo. Literally every scientist, in literally every field, would love to discover something that turns the entire base of knowledge for their discipline on its ear. It's a mission to ensure the accuracy of that knowledge base.

Basically, so what? You're continuing to idealize the scientific community. First of all, if it we're all as pure as you want it be, there would be no need for peer review for the thousands of instances of misconduct:

"A new study finds that fraud in scientific research is growing at a troubling rate, with an average of 300 papers per year being retracted for some form of scientific misconduct ... The new study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has found that 66 percent of retracted life-sciences papers were done so due to misconduct. It follows another study published last year by the journal Nature, that reported an alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers–an increase ten times that of the previous decade" ( Story here )​

But misconduct isn't the only issue. Scientists can do everything right and still be just be plain wrong. One modern example is how the estimated age of the universe has been changing for the last few decades, and not just by a small amount either. There are other examples as well, and it's not sufficient to simply write it off as though it doesn't matter because they reworked their calculations and revised their estimates. Science isn't the only process that does that. So if you fail to recognize that science makes errors and is prone to misconduct and isn't the only tool in the box, you're not only arbitrarily discarding other useful processes for pursuing the truth, you're leaving yourself vulnerable to the problems that go along with it.

​

Lastly, none of the above represents in any way an "anti-science" stance. Telling the truth doesn't make one "anti-science". Saying science is an excellent tool doesn't make one "anti-science", and I've said that many times. I just don't idealize it. Neither do I demonize it. You will actually find ( if you check ) that I recently started a thread called, "A Science Minute".​

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Basically, so what? You're continuing to idealize the scientific community. First of all, if it we're all as pure as you want it be, there would be no need for peer review for the thousands of instances of misconduct

I don't idealize science so much as those are the very ideals of science.

There would be the exact need for exactly that.

If it were any other area of research, nobody would bother to retract anything. It's an ironclad testament to the power and influence of peer review and why it's necessary. Unfortunately, since science is the only mode of study that can present proofs effectively, it is the only mode of study in which peer review makes legitimate sense. Naturally, as a result, science is also the only mode of study that has to air its dirty laundry, which means people point at things like this and say, "see?!?"

What I see is that peer review is getting better as time goes on. That means that frauds are finding it harder to stay published. That means the facts are getting harder to muddy. What I see is science in action, cutting the fat and leaving the fact.

What other mode of study can display that kind of quality and integrity?

However science in the only tool in the box

But it is, to me. That's why a debate, between us, regarding the supernatural is impossible (though, I think it is impossible for anyone, dealing largely with unknowable factors).

I understand your approach to study, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Like all of these debates, or quasi-debates, between skeptics and paranormal researchers, the conversation has turned into a defense of science. That is why I generally use the term "anti-science." For the paranormal to be debated as fact, science has to come under attack at some point.