News0 min ago
Questioning The Conclusions Of Science
This question arises from the discussion in R&S on the dubious practice of Water Divining. Sometimes the conclusions of science result not from positive evidence that the subject is invalid, but from absence of evidence. Whilst I know the scientifically minded will say ‘until evidence is forthcoming, I won’t consider the possibility’, but the question is do those who accept the conclusions of science ever waver and consider the possibility that evidence could exist that science has missed – or has overlooked – or is currently technologically incapable of recognising or testing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course you have to recognise the limitations, Naomi. No serious scientist does otherwise.
Another argument we hear quite often is that such phenomena do exist, using either a mechanism that could be plausibly explained by science, or yet again working by some outside context method we have no referent for, but when tested under scientific conditions somehow fails to manifest itself - that the act of control, or observation itself interferes with the mechanism that the phenomenon uses.
I have heard this argument used many times, to explain ESP, Clairvoyance, Homeopathy, Faith Healing, Astrology, Reading of Auras, Seances, Divination - you name it.
Do we accept that there is a possibility that being observed affects the phenomenon? Scientifically speaking, of course you have to accept the possibility, but it has to be an extremely remote possibility. This is often used as a kind of killer argument by the proponents of a particular theory. Aha! they exclaim. The act of observation or measurement itself affects what is being measured!. Except that Science is already aware of this, already accounts for this in methodological design and data interpretation. Its called the Observer Effect.
But for a phenomenon to be taken seriously by science, it needs to be measurable and reproduceable.It also has to be plausible.
Take, oh I don't know - Telepathy. How does it work? If it is electro-magnetic ability, we will be able to measure it. It will have to obey the laws of physics. It would need an area in the brain that can act as a broadcast unit, and an area in the brain that can act as a receiver. The signal would need to be strong enough to penetrate soft tissue, fluid, bone, skin, then the atmosphere for a distance of meters, kilometres, maybe? then pass through skin, bone, fluid and soft tissue of the recipient, who then has to recognise it as a message from someone else rather than an idle or imaginary thought of their own, and decode it.
It is, simply put, implausible by any known scientific mechanism to date.
How about something like Astral Projection or a soul? This requires that your conscience, whatever makes you you, is somehow distinct from the matter that makes up your brain and body - that is a kind of separate, coherent, non-material energistic being - unmeasurable, unverifiable, but capable of leaving the body, retaining its shape and identity, and being able to impel itself over great distances.
Again, completely implausible by any scientific theory.
Water dowsing is like divination. If you accept water dowsing, then you must accept bomb detectors that work by the same undefined principle.
Here we have the notion that substances "resonate" - different substances will have different "resonances signatures", and that some people are "attuned" to these resonances, or in the case of the bomb detectors, the device can be "attuned" to the substance in question. And the act of dowsing is the human again acting as a kind of receiver for these broadcast resonance signatures. But no one can explain what energy is being broadcast. No one can explain how a human can be attuned to it. No one can show where the receptors within the brain are. No one can demonstrate that these substances, do, in fact, emit resonance signatures.
Again, implausible. And, it has to be said, never ever been shown to work in any of the hundreds of controlled tests.
In the absence of any such data, the more likely explanation is ideomotor reflex, and subconscious assessment of the local geography to determine a likely spot. Random chance dictates that sometimes you will get it right. A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Sorry, thats all a bit rambly... :)
Another argument we hear quite often is that such phenomena do exist, using either a mechanism that could be plausibly explained by science, or yet again working by some outside context method we have no referent for, but when tested under scientific conditions somehow fails to manifest itself - that the act of control, or observation itself interferes with the mechanism that the phenomenon uses.
I have heard this argument used many times, to explain ESP, Clairvoyance, Homeopathy, Faith Healing, Astrology, Reading of Auras, Seances, Divination - you name it.
Do we accept that there is a possibility that being observed affects the phenomenon? Scientifically speaking, of course you have to accept the possibility, but it has to be an extremely remote possibility. This is often used as a kind of killer argument by the proponents of a particular theory. Aha! they exclaim. The act of observation or measurement itself affects what is being measured!. Except that Science is already aware of this, already accounts for this in methodological design and data interpretation. Its called the Observer Effect.
But for a phenomenon to be taken seriously by science, it needs to be measurable and reproduceable.It also has to be plausible.
Take, oh I don't know - Telepathy. How does it work? If it is electro-magnetic ability, we will be able to measure it. It will have to obey the laws of physics. It would need an area in the brain that can act as a broadcast unit, and an area in the brain that can act as a receiver. The signal would need to be strong enough to penetrate soft tissue, fluid, bone, skin, then the atmosphere for a distance of meters, kilometres, maybe? then pass through skin, bone, fluid and soft tissue of the recipient, who then has to recognise it as a message from someone else rather than an idle or imaginary thought of their own, and decode it.
It is, simply put, implausible by any known scientific mechanism to date.
How about something like Astral Projection or a soul? This requires that your conscience, whatever makes you you, is somehow distinct from the matter that makes up your brain and body - that is a kind of separate, coherent, non-material energistic being - unmeasurable, unverifiable, but capable of leaving the body, retaining its shape and identity, and being able to impel itself over great distances.
Again, completely implausible by any scientific theory.
Water dowsing is like divination. If you accept water dowsing, then you must accept bomb detectors that work by the same undefined principle.
Here we have the notion that substances "resonate" - different substances will have different "resonances signatures", and that some people are "attuned" to these resonances, or in the case of the bomb detectors, the device can be "attuned" to the substance in question. And the act of dowsing is the human again acting as a kind of receiver for these broadcast resonance signatures. But no one can explain what energy is being broadcast. No one can explain how a human can be attuned to it. No one can show where the receptors within the brain are. No one can demonstrate that these substances, do, in fact, emit resonance signatures.
Again, implausible. And, it has to be said, never ever been shown to work in any of the hundreds of controlled tests.
In the absence of any such data, the more likely explanation is ideomotor reflex, and subconscious assessment of the local geography to determine a likely spot. Random chance dictates that sometimes you will get it right. A stopped clock is right twice a day....
Sorry, thats all a bit rambly... :)
I think that Water Divining has about the same scientific status now as Ball Lightning had a century ago - scientifically inexplicable, but then plasma physics didn't exist. It's still inexplicable, but 'science' at least now accepts that it happens - so the same thing could happen with water divining.
Also it's a bit like poor old Alfred Wegener a century ago, pointing out that the Atlantic coastlines of Africa and South America matched so closely (not just in shape, but in detailed geological features) that they MUST have been joined together at some time. The 'science' of his time didn't disagree with his observations, but they just said that, as there was no known force or mechanism that could have shifted a whole continent two or three thousand miles sideways, it must all just be a remarkable coincidence. Likewise, it's no good trying to persuade 'science' that the results of Water Divining prove anything, unitil there is some new theory with which to model how it happens.
Also it's a bit like poor old Alfred Wegener a century ago, pointing out that the Atlantic coastlines of Africa and South America matched so closely (not just in shape, but in detailed geological features) that they MUST have been joined together at some time. The 'science' of his time didn't disagree with his observations, but they just said that, as there was no known force or mechanism that could have shifted a whole continent two or three thousand miles sideways, it must all just be a remarkable coincidence. Likewise, it's no good trying to persuade 'science' that the results of Water Divining prove anything, unitil there is some new theory with which to model how it happens.
As an 'ordinary man in the street' person with no scientific background my thoughts on all matters psychic are this, if as we know there are sounds that we cannot hear ( animals can) then surely it is possible there are visual things our eyes are incapable of seeing & other things that science can not at this time explain but may do so in the future.
WR.
WR.
I think water divining can be explained by people subconsciously looking at an area and picking out a likely spot from the 'lie of the land' and geographical knowledge.
Lets face it you only look for water in places where it is likely to be , you would not try divining in the desert for example.
Then we only hear about the successes we never hear about the times , and there must be many, when it does not work.
I could find water near my house, I know we are on chalk and all you have to do is dig deep enough.
Lets face it you only look for water in places where it is likely to be , you would not try divining in the desert for example.
Then we only hear about the successes we never hear about the times , and there must be many, when it does not work.
I could find water near my house, I know we are on chalk and all you have to do is dig deep enough.
The point about that Ron, is that we know that animals can see and hear things beyond our own natural spectrum of hearing and seeing. We know that birds have receptors in the eye that are receptive to UV radiation.
We know this because we can measure it. We know this because we can identify anatomical structures that allow for this. And we know this because we can see into the UV spectrum ourselves, can hear beyond our own natural auditory range by using devices and appliances to translate that for us.
My point is - its the mechanism is not unknown. Its explainable by the existing laws of physics. However, for psychic abilities to work, this requires mechanisms and physics and forces that are not currently recognisable within the current laws of nature and our understanding of the universe. There is indeed a possibility that that might change, but it is a remote one. And the evidence that these phenomena actually occur at all is unreliable, patchy, and almost always unverifiable.
In a way, its the same kind of thing wrt what bert mentioned.Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics was unknown to the science of the time.But - the phenomena was real, observable, measurable.You might claim that something similar could happen now - something beyond our ken - but such a thing happening is so much more unlikely, because what we know is so much more comprehensive than what we knew back then.
Paradigm shifts in knowledge - a breakthrough to a completely new science utterly unknown before now - become increasingly less likely as our existing knowledge becomes incrementally more comprehensive. And for psychic abilities to be true, for homeopathy to be real, for divination to work, for FTL travel to occur, thats whats needed- a paradigm shift in our knowledge.
We know this because we can measure it. We know this because we can identify anatomical structures that allow for this. And we know this because we can see into the UV spectrum ourselves, can hear beyond our own natural auditory range by using devices and appliances to translate that for us.
My point is - its the mechanism is not unknown. Its explainable by the existing laws of physics. However, for psychic abilities to work, this requires mechanisms and physics and forces that are not currently recognisable within the current laws of nature and our understanding of the universe. There is indeed a possibility that that might change, but it is a remote one. And the evidence that these phenomena actually occur at all is unreliable, patchy, and almost always unverifiable.
In a way, its the same kind of thing wrt what bert mentioned.Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics was unknown to the science of the time.But - the phenomena was real, observable, measurable.You might claim that something similar could happen now - something beyond our ken - but such a thing happening is so much more unlikely, because what we know is so much more comprehensive than what we knew back then.
Paradigm shifts in knowledge - a breakthrough to a completely new science utterly unknown before now - become increasingly less likely as our existing knowledge becomes incrementally more comprehensive. And for psychic abilities to be true, for homeopathy to be real, for divination to work, for FTL travel to occur, thats whats needed- a paradigm shift in our knowledge.
I don't think that "real" scientists refuse to consider possibilities without evidence. I do think though that they "put them on the back burner" until evidence is forthcoming.
Yes we do observe phenomena that we currently don't have an explanation for, ball lightning is a good example and continental drift is another...Darwin's famous beagle voyage is another mahoosive example.
even simple things like making cheese and bread and brewing beer were known about and used long before the chemistry of it was understood.
The scientist says "I will wait till I can explain it," the pragmatist says "well in the mean time, I will use it."
Yes we do observe phenomena that we currently don't have an explanation for, ball lightning is a good example and continental drift is another...Darwin's famous beagle voyage is another mahoosive example.
even simple things like making cheese and bread and brewing beer were known about and used long before the chemistry of it was understood.
The scientist says "I will wait till I can explain it," the pragmatist says "well in the mean time, I will use it."
@ Ron - Did not see the programme. What aspects of reality do you think we still have to learn about then?
You tried to use birds using the UV spectrum and animals hearing stuff outside or our range of hearing as an example of the limitations of scientific knowledge, and to justify the existence of psychic phenomena acting by means of an as yet unknown scientific method. But those are poor examples, since we can explain them, measure them, see them and hear them ourselves, with the aid of equipment, and are entirely consistent with our current understanding.
What constitutes reality at a sub-atomic or quantum level - which is what I suspect the programme was about - is indeed interesting.
Our knowledge does become somewhat patchy,imperfect and speculative, it is true. But finding the Higgs Boson has gone a long way toward confirming the standard model - that what we thought we knew about the universe actually is correct.
And what happens at a quantum level - the peculiarities of what seems to happen at quantum level, at least to our perceptual understanding, is very different to what happens in our world.
It would be a mistake to assume that this counter-intuitive behaviour,this strangeness in the actions of sub-atomic particles, or photons, or quantum entanglement can be scaled up into the macro-world and used to explain the otherwise inexplicable though - the world of atoms, and molecules, and cells, and stars and planets is still largely the preserve of Newtonian physics, of cause and effect.
You tried to use birds using the UV spectrum and animals hearing stuff outside or our range of hearing as an example of the limitations of scientific knowledge, and to justify the existence of psychic phenomena acting by means of an as yet unknown scientific method. But those are poor examples, since we can explain them, measure them, see them and hear them ourselves, with the aid of equipment, and are entirely consistent with our current understanding.
What constitutes reality at a sub-atomic or quantum level - which is what I suspect the programme was about - is indeed interesting.
Our knowledge does become somewhat patchy,imperfect and speculative, it is true. But finding the Higgs Boson has gone a long way toward confirming the standard model - that what we thought we knew about the universe actually is correct.
And what happens at a quantum level - the peculiarities of what seems to happen at quantum level, at least to our perceptual understanding, is very different to what happens in our world.
It would be a mistake to assume that this counter-intuitive behaviour,this strangeness in the actions of sub-atomic particles, or photons, or quantum entanglement can be scaled up into the macro-world and used to explain the otherwise inexplicable though - the world of atoms, and molecules, and cells, and stars and planets is still largely the preserve of Newtonian physics, of cause and effect.
The pragmatist will only use it if it works, Woofgang. Brewing, Cheese all that- they reliably work, time after time, reproducibly so, whether you observe them or not.
You cannot say the same about pyschic phenomena, or dowsing, or bomb-detecting, or telepathy, or any of the other weird and wonderful stuff that reportedly happens.....
You cannot say the same about pyschic phenomena, or dowsing, or bomb-detecting, or telepathy, or any of the other weird and wonderful stuff that reportedly happens.....
Dowsing (I prefer that term to divining for obvious reasons) is something that I have never been able to reconcile with my scientific mind.
I have actually done dowsing myself. I support the notion that it cannot be tested scientifically due to the observer effect which contrary to LazyGun's suggestion, cannot be eliminated by any scientific methodology.
I can tell you it is nothing to do with looking at the terrain.
I will post my experiences later. I have other commitments right now.
I have actually done dowsing myself. I support the notion that it cannot be tested scientifically due to the observer effect which contrary to LazyGun's suggestion, cannot be eliminated by any scientific methodology.
I can tell you it is nothing to do with looking at the terrain.
I will post my experiences later. I have other commitments right now.
Woofgang, //I don't think that "real" scientists refuse to consider possibilities without evidence. I do think though that they "put them on the back burner" until evidence is forthcoming.//
Not necessarily. A scientist on the other thread stated:
//It doesn't work. Anyone who says otherwise is, frankly, wrong.//
…another …..
//This whole thing is utter nonsense and is proven to be so and yet like proverbial rubber-duck, it keeps resurfacing no matter how often it is sunk.//
And another …..
//I guess we must have been born without the 'gift' (gullibility?) because none of it worked for us. The point being that we did have open minds, open to reason.//
Hence the question.
LG, //Of course you have to recognise the limitations, Naomi. No serious scientist does otherwise.//
See above. Those posters certainly don’t recognise limitations. They know it doesn't work, so no need for further investigation.
Not necessarily. A scientist on the other thread stated:
//It doesn't work. Anyone who says otherwise is, frankly, wrong.//
…another …..
//This whole thing is utter nonsense and is proven to be so and yet like proverbial rubber-duck, it keeps resurfacing no matter how often it is sunk.//
And another …..
//I guess we must have been born without the 'gift' (gullibility?) because none of it worked for us. The point being that we did have open minds, open to reason.//
Hence the question.
LG, //Of course you have to recognise the limitations, Naomi. No serious scientist does otherwise.//
See above. Those posters certainly don’t recognise limitations. They know it doesn't work, so no need for further investigation.
Not strictly so Naomi. If you take the position of atheists as an example.
We can't say there is no god. We can say, on balance, that the odds of god existing are so small as to not even be worth considering.
I think that is what Jim was driving at. There is so little concrete evidence that it is safe to assume (for now) that divining doesn't work.
We can't say there is no god. We can say, on balance, that the odds of god existing are so small as to not even be worth considering.
I think that is what Jim was driving at. There is so little concrete evidence that it is safe to assume (for now) that divining doesn't work.
*rolls eyes*
The problem is that it's one of those times where you can say the following, and be right:
"All scientific testing to date has revealed that X is no more likely than would be expected through random chance."
But this always seems to leave the door open for people to jump on some straw or other, such as the one you do, in the case of dowsing, or of psychic effects, that there might be a chance that it is mistaken. Well, I suppose there is one, technically. But it's tiny. Minuscule.
On the one hand you have all these personal accounts, with at least one person claiming a phenomenal 100% success rate. Well, everyone who has claimed that before and has been tested has been wildly wrong. The Randi test relied on only an 80% success rate to show that the ability might be genuine, and they couldn't even manage that.
The thing is that as the evidence (or rather the lack of it) for dowsing being a real phenomenon piles up, the chance that a future experiment will show it to be genuine diminishes, further and further. At some point it just becomes bloody-minded to continue to question whether or not there is something that Science has missed. I'd say that we've reached that point.
Because of that I feel safe in declaring it to be "wrong", even though this probably doesn't quite capture the full truth. I think it's the difference between 99.999999% and 100% -- in many scientific situations this difference is considered to be negligible, and I think the same holds here.
The problem is that it's one of those times where you can say the following, and be right:
"All scientific testing to date has revealed that X is no more likely than would be expected through random chance."
But this always seems to leave the door open for people to jump on some straw or other, such as the one you do, in the case of dowsing, or of psychic effects, that there might be a chance that it is mistaken. Well, I suppose there is one, technically. But it's tiny. Minuscule.
On the one hand you have all these personal accounts, with at least one person claiming a phenomenal 100% success rate. Well, everyone who has claimed that before and has been tested has been wildly wrong. The Randi test relied on only an 80% success rate to show that the ability might be genuine, and they couldn't even manage that.
The thing is that as the evidence (or rather the lack of it) for dowsing being a real phenomenon piles up, the chance that a future experiment will show it to be genuine diminishes, further and further. At some point it just becomes bloody-minded to continue to question whether or not there is something that Science has missed. I'd say that we've reached that point.
Because of that I feel safe in declaring it to be "wrong", even though this probably doesn't quite capture the full truth. I think it's the difference between 99.999999% and 100% -- in many scientific situations this difference is considered to be negligible, and I think the same holds here.
ok...my opinion, but I think maybe not just my opinion...will research later. Is that a "real" scientist doesn't simply discard things because there is currently no evidence. They may well put them on the huge teetering "currently no evidence" pile, bit they don't discard them unless there is a huge pile of evidence which says that whatever it is cannot work...and even then there is the possibility of review.
It doesn't matter what someone calls themselves, where they train or what they do, even how successful they are...if they walk away from the consensus tenets of their group..then they can't say they still are members of the group....like being a christian who doesn't believe in god or an atheist who does.
It doesn't matter what someone calls themselves, where they train or what they do, even how successful they are...if they walk away from the consensus tenets of their group..then they can't say they still are members of the group....like being a christian who doesn't believe in god or an atheist who does.
I'm not sure either that it's fair to say that I'm discarding this. If an experiment conducted by someone else conclusively and fairly demonstrated that dowsing does work then I'd have to accept that.
More accurately, I'm discarding any interest in testing this for myself. In my estimation, the evidence is such that I have better things to do with my time than to set up an experiment that will more than likely confirm yet again that this is just an illusion created by random chance. And even if I did do that experiment, and it reached that same conclusion, then there would still be claims of dowsing working all over the world, who'd just ignore that evidence.
Of course if dowsing does work -- under controlled conditions -- I'd look pretty silly. I'm prepared to take that risk, because I don't think it exists.
More accurately, I'm discarding any interest in testing this for myself. In my estimation, the evidence is such that I have better things to do with my time than to set up an experiment that will more than likely confirm yet again that this is just an illusion created by random chance. And even if I did do that experiment, and it reached that same conclusion, then there would still be claims of dowsing working all over the world, who'd just ignore that evidence.
Of course if dowsing does work -- under controlled conditions -- I'd look pretty silly. I'm prepared to take that risk, because I don't think it exists.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.