# I'm bowing out of all future "paranormal" threads. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003 "2004-10-25T05:08:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/41 "2004-10-25T16:15:35Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > If we agree that the epistemology called “science” deals with _reality_ while the epistemology called “mathematics” deals with _metaphysical_ entities I don’t, unless you can convince me (which you probably can, but hey). ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/42 "2004-10-25T16:25:05Z")
Science relies on real experiments to falsify hypotheses, **PG**. I can no more experimentally falsify the statement “1+1=2” than I can the statement “I like this painting” or “God exists”. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/43 "2004-10-25T16:26:11Z")
Of course I can’t falsify “1+1=2”, it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/44 "2004-10-25T16:27:02Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I disagree. Until a few weeks ago, if someone had gone into CS and started a _Showgirls_ thread, regular posters would have all been saying, “Where’s **lissener**?” Yes, this is what I was thinking. And we all know what happened to him. I didn’t want to do a flameout like that; I like this board too much. And I don’t think I was getting close to that level. But what really made me decide to avoid this topic set altogether are posters saying they can’t believe I haven’t been banned yet, that I should be banned, that I have no integrity, etc. Bizarre. That’s not me, and I prefer not to view myself in a funhouse mirror. If certain proponents of the “other side” are going to play that way, then not only is the debate not enjoyable, I think they have a pretty good chance in the end of either politicking for a banning or bringing me down to that level so that I actually deserve it. Insofar as I’ve gotten nasty in the Pit over these issues, that’s not a breach of the board rules but it’s a violation of my own principles. Campaigning to have someone banned who by any standard just “isn’t all that bad,” however, is an _issue_ that’s beyond my control. Except to avoid them altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/45 "2004-10-25T16:39:23Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Of course I can’t falsify “1+1=2”, it’s true. Well, you know, the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/46 "2004-10-25T16:46:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Campaigning to have someone banned who by any standard just “isn’t all that bad,” however, is an _issue_ that’s beyond my control. Except to avoid them altogether. Except that by any reasonable standard, you could never be deemed “not all that bad”. Or don’t you remember “pulling the string of Chucky the Skeptic”? Don’t you remember the battle between **lekatt** and the “Panties-in-a-wad-ers”? Don’t you remember your own phony conversion to skepticism? Don’t you remember claiming to have cites (in Great Debates), but refusing to show them because you “weren’t here to debate”? Face it, **Aeschines** , you’ve been an asshole. I’m not saying I haven’t been, I probably have, but I’m not the one whining about how everyone hates me even though I’m a swell guy. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/47 "2004-10-25T16:51:33Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, you know, the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. Besides the point. I cannot falsify “1+1=2” since it’s true, but I can prove it, since it’s true. I can falsify “1+1=3” since it’s false, but I can’t prove it, since it’s false. **SentientMeat** seems to be saying that if I can’t falsify Relativity, it can’t be true. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/48 "2004-10-25T17:01:29Z")
No no no, that’s not what he means. He means falsification [in the Popperian sense](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html). To falsify an hypothesis is to test its risk. An hypothesis must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/49 "2004-10-25T17:01:52Z")
Uh oh. This is turning into one of _those_ threads. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/50 "2004-10-25T17:18:54Z")
**Lib** , you know I understand where you’re coming from, and in a purely philosophical sense, I agree with you. But speaking solely for myself, I do have a problem with those of a non-empirical bent who attempt to establish their beliefs _within an empirical context._ That is to say, I have no problem with any sort of non-scientific beliefs until a proponent claims those beliefs are valid in a scientific/empirical context. Belief in a 6-day creation, for example, is fine by me–but don’t try to claim it’s scientifically valid. It’s unnecessary and foolish. That’s my only hangup here. (As an aside, my brother the Methodist minister asked me a few years back if I could explain the Darwin fish/Truth fish car sticker fad. I told him is was a result of a bunch of rationalists thinking that belief was a threat, and a bunch of believers thinking that rationalism was a threat, and that they were all making the stupid mistake of thinking they had to play in each others’ ballfields. He said he figure it had to be something as silly as that.) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/51 "2004-10-25T17:21:47Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > Uh oh. This is turning into one of _those_ threads. Just doing my part. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/52 "2004-10-25T17:29:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > To falsify an hypothesis is to test its risk. An hypothesis must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. Ah, he didn’t mean “actually falsify”, he basically meant “be theoretically able to falsify”. Well then, I’m sticking to my guns. Provided we agree on the definitions of “1”, “+”, “=” and “2”, anyone can test that hypothesis using common household ingredients. Pick anything to use for “units” and go from there. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/53 "2004-10-25T17:35:04Z")
By the way, **Liberal** , regarding **Aeschines** : If he had simply said “I believe in remote viewing/psi/ghosts/whatever”, then fine. But he didn’t. He said that his beliefs had been empirically shown in the lab by scientists. He said that successful experiments had been carried out. When he says that, he makes empirical statements, and I think it’s perfectly reasonably to ask him to back up empirical statements with empirical data. He refused, preferring to play games and insult other debaters. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/54 "2004-10-25T17:36:43Z")
> [@andros](#): > > But speaking solely for myself, I do have a problem with those of a non-empirical bent who attempt to establish their beliefs _within an empirical context._ That is to say, I have no problem with any sort of non-scientific beliefs until a proponent claims those beliefs are valid in a scientific/empirical context. Belief in a 6-day creation, for example, is fine by me–but don’t try to claim it’s scientifically valid. It’s unnecessary and foolish. I agree completely. That’s why I told Aeschines that if he made an epistemic claim, then vigilant posters like Sentient would rightly demand epistemological support. But science hardly needs another voice to defend it here. People who don’t even know what it is defend it left and right. I am as concerned about the scientist who demands empirical evidence that God exists as I am about the fundamentalist who demands Biblical evidence for evolution. It’s really very simple: metaphysical claims demand deductive proof; epistemic claims demand inductive proof; observational claims demand empirical proof; and so on. A man who thinks he can prove by experiment that 1+1=2 is true is as clueless as the man who thinks he can prove by Bible verses that the world was created in six days. They are, to me, equally exasperating. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/55 "2004-10-25T17:41:54Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A man who thinks he can prove by experiment that 1+1=2 is true is as clueless as the man who thinks he can prove by Bible verses that the world was created in six days. Then show me why. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/56 "2004-10-25T17:46:02Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Ah, he didn’t mean “actually falsify”, he basically meant “be theoretically able to falsify”. Well then, I’m sticking to my guns. Provided we agree on the definitions of “1”, “+”, “=” and “2”, anyone can test that hypothesis using common household ingredients. Pick anything to use for “units” and go from there. Yes, you can test it, but you cannot prove it to be true. After you’ve tested it a million times, you have not established that it will work again the million-and-first time. Only a deductive proof will establish once and for all that 1 + 1 = 2 **because it is a metaphysical claim**. If you read the link I gave you to Popper, you’ll see that science cannot prove anything true — it only proves things _false_. That’s why it is called “falsification”. That’s why science is malleable. That’s why Einstein’s theories can augment or supplant Newton’s. Science is valid only for empirical claims, and even then it must use caution because what appears to be an empirical claim might be an epistemic one. Modern philosophers of science understand this, and it is the basis of modern Theory of Experiments (a field in statistics). Consider, for example, the man who conducted a three-day experiment. On the first day, he mixed water and whiskey and got drunk. On the second day, he mixed water and vodka and got drunk. On the third day, he mixed water and rum and got drunk. His conclusion was that since water was the common element each time, it was water that made him drunk. His error was epistemic in nature despite his careful observation. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/57 "2004-10-25T17:46:11Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Except that by any reasonable standard, you could never be deemed “not all that bad”. Or don’t you remember “pulling the string of Chucky the Skeptic”? Don’t you remember the battle between **lekatt** and the “Panties-in-a-wad-ers”? Don’t you remember your own phony conversion to skepticism? Don’t you remember claiming to have cites (in Great Debates), but refusing to show them because you “weren’t here to debate”? > > Face it, **Aeschines** , you’ve been an asshole. I’m not saying I haven’t been, I probably have, but I’m not the one whining about how everyone hates me even though I’m a swell guy. Yes, **Priceguy** , I’ve been imperfect. Most or all of what you cite above are my oldest posts, when I was still getting used to the rhythm of the board. Even those, however, were done in the spirit of Puckish fun, and usually when I was greatly outnumbered, if not battling quite by myself. Hardly what I’d call “asshole” territory, which to me implies I’m really being nasty and mean to people. Of course, I’ve failed in that regard too now and then. At any rate, why don’t we just let bygones be bygones and be friendly? I’m not interested in battles any more. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/58 "2004-10-25T17:49:49Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Then show me why. I already did. In post #38. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/59 "2004-10-25T17:52:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Yes, you can test it, but you cannot prove it to be true. Only in the sense that I can’t empirically _prove_ anything to be true, only show that it’s extremely likely that something is true, which means that “1+1=2” is as falsifiable as any other hypothesis. If we’ve misunderstood each other, and you are in fact _not_ saying that “1+1=2” is fundamentally different from “Relativity is true” or “evolution happened” or whatever, then I apologize for the misunderstanding and will be on my merry way. If you _are_ saying that, please explain. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/60 "2004-10-25T17:54:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Whiny, yes, but this is my last stand as an attention whore. 🙂 > > Actually, there is a point to this. In the future, when the battles begin to rage over some paranormal topic, people will wonder where I am; I’m a regular in such threads, so to speak. But through the power of this thread they will be relieved of wondering why I am not participating. > > BTW, **Ilsa** , whence the hate and anger? That is something I don’t get about certain regions of SDMB, and it really seems to have gotten worse of late. Feh. I already knew you were going to post this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=4)