[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
Listen, nothing is incumbant upon anyone. This isn’t white-collar court.
[/QUOTE]
*"Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty. Up near the top end we have our theory of gravitation based on a staggering amount of evidence; down at the bottom we have the theory that the Earth is flat. In the middle we have our theory of the origin of the moons of Uranus. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.
An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that is close to the top of the certainty scale and will give rise to a lot of skepticism. So if you are trying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available that are even higher up the certainty scale: ``extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim’'.*
The painting on this page could be viewed as a depiction of what happens to nonsensical theories whose proponents insist that others must do their work for them.
[QUOTE=SeanArenas]
You’re right, I was lurking. I’d posted a couple of posts on my guest account a year ago, and later realized that I had made a post on another guest account in 2006 (as Cheeop) which was quoted in a Cecil article. I doubt those posts qualified me as a troll though.
So now I’m done lurking and am glad to join in the festivities here!
[/QUOTE]
Well get you taken care of when I get back to town Sunday night – no time, etc. to do it now.
Please send me an email at TubaDiva@aol.com and indicate which screen name you wish to keep – we’ll merge up all your posts under that name.
[QUOTE=zut]
You and Musicat are both talking about “research,” but you’re talking about different phases of a research process.
You’re talking about an earlier phase, sort of a “let’s mess around in the lab and see if we find anything interesting.” There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t confuse it with the later phase, which Musicat is discussing, which is, “OK, we found something interesting; let’s construct a rigorous study to see if there’s really an effect here or not.”
[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree that the earlier phase should be conducted by ‘messing around’ in the lab and its results never published. How unscientific!
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Actually it’s you who has a wrong view of science. The default position of science is not, as you say, neutrality toward any given belief. The default position, given the absence of proof, is absence of belief
[/QUOTE]
How is neutrality different from absence of belief?!
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that is close to the top of the certainty scale and will give rise to a lot of skepticism. So if you are trying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available that are even higher up the certainty scale: ``extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim’'.*
The painting on this page could be viewed as a depiction of what happens to nonsensical theories whose proponents insist that others must do their work for them.
[/QUOTE]
So how exactly do ear candles (or other things) “contradict a fact that is close to the top of the certainty scale”? Does special relativity prohibit events inside the ear from being affected by events inside the candle? This definition of “extraodinary claim” is a good one, but it’s telling of your personality what you think it applies to.
And thanks for wishing science was a bloodsport in which tentative theories get gleefully dismembered. And then you say you’re not a cynic?
[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
How is neutrality different from absence of belief?!
[/QUOTE]
Neutrality regards all hypothesis as being equally valid, regardless of any prior evidence, observation, or logical induction. Though it applies equally to all hypothesis, it is nonetheless an affirmative belief. Absence of belief is simply the absence of that or any other belief regarding the hypothesis.
[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
I strongly disagree that the earlier phase should be conducted by ‘messing around’ in the lab and its results never published. How unscientific!
[/QUOTE]
Your belief is completely non-sensical, particularly since it directly contradicts statements you made earlier. I had thought you were being serious in your arguments, but it appears I was mistaken.
[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
So how exactly do ear candles (or other things) “contradict a fact that is close to the top of the certainty scale”?
[/quote]
Basic anatomy and physics certainly are "close to the top of the certainty scale. See earlier posts and the Quackwatch link on ear candling. To allege that these basic facts are somehow circumvented by the process of ear candling is by any rational interpretation an “extraordinary claim”.
Alex, I know you wish science operated differently and treated all ideas with the same level of respect and investigated them all with equal vigor.
But that’s all it is - wishful thinking. You can stomp your feet, pretend science works differently and that we’re all a bunch of nasty-minded cynics, but you’re just kidding yourself.
This debate has fueled my belief that we badly need a mandatory course in critical thinking in school, maybe at the junior high level. Students would be taught about the scientific method and how to recognize false claims and fallacies of all sorts.
Hell, I’d volunteer to teach a semester (once I retire, maybe…).
[QUOTE=Alex Dubinsky]
How is neutrality different from absence of belief?!
[/QUOTE]
Neutrality regards all hypothesis as being equally valid, regardless of any prior evidence, observation, or logical induction. Though it applies equally to all hypothesis, it is nonetheless an affirmative belief. Absence of belief is simply the absence of that or any other belief regarding the hypothesis.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make. Neutrality means you’re neither saying it’s right, and neither you’re saying it’s wrong. It’s exactly like absence of belief… and in contrast to the other sentiment that ideas are “wrong until proven otherwise.”
A belief that holds all hypothesis valid “regardless of any prior evidence or observation” is just called dumb. We’re talking about hypotheses that have no prior evidence, and I’m saying, and it seems you’re saying, that they truly are “don’t knows.” All the other words that you’re speaking seem to be trying to justify your sentiment that no, somehow you’re not agreeing with me.
[QUOTE=zut]
[QUOTE=Alex Dubinsky]
I strongly disagree that the earlier phase should be conducted by ‘messing around’ in the lab and its results never published. How unscientific!
[/QUOTE]
Your belief is completely non-sensical, particularly since it directly contradicts statements you made earlier. I had thought you were being serious in your arguments, but it appears I was mistaken.
[/QUOTE]
Your post is completely non-sensical. What the hell are you referring to? Jackmannii, I didn’t say that all ideas should be investigated with equal vigor (because of resources). But yes, you should have respect. Also, ear candles causing vacuum clearly contradicts “things at the top of the certainty scale.” But ear candles providing benefits do not. You keep susbstituting one thing for another in your head to make the pieces click. This is what happens when you don’t treat ideas with respect.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
This debate has fueled my belief that we badly need a mandatory course in critical thinking in school, maybe at the junior high level. Students would be taught about the scientific method and how to recognize false claims and fallacies of all sorts.
[/QUOTE]
Middle school, definitely. If not sooner.
The degree of ignorance in our culture about what science is and how it works is truly appalling.
