Questioning The Conclusions Of Science

[naomi24]

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?

[woofgang]

okay, I googled
"do scientists discard phenomena because there is no explanation for it"
and seemingly the answer is no
then i googled
'do scientists discard phenomena which are not repeatable"
and the answer seems to be maybe....but first they try hard to make the phenomenon repeatable'

[woofgang]

But there is a huge difference between saying-as a real scientist would
"to date there is no evidence that xxx exists so for the moment I will construct my world model on the basis that it doesn't exist"

and "xxx doesn't exist"

[jim360]

Fine.

To date there is no evidence that [dowsing/ telepathy/ psychic abilities/ paranormal phenomena] exists, and so for the moment I will construct my model of the universe (see avatar) on the basis that such do not exist.

I did actually say this (or words to that effect) several times before. This does express my position best, I'm just a fan of brevity.

[naomi24]

Chris, no, we can’t say there is no God, but this is something very different. This is physical. It’s something that has been observed by millions of people.

Jim, stop rolling your eyes. It doesn’t suit you.

//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.//

Because you restrict possibilities to current knowledge, that is your assumption - and assumptions aren't facts.

[pixie373]

I think every phenomenon can be explained in a scientific way- whether we are advanced enough to be able to explain it yet is a different matter. It makes sense to be open-minded to all possibilities until they can be proven one way or another.
Unfortunately, you can only prove things positively, you can't prove an absence of something, hence why religion still exists.

[Khandro]

Animals have the ability to find water. If they simply wandered around in the jungle or on the veldt hoping to find it by accident they would die of dehydration. We say they can 'smell' water but it doesn't seem to me to have a smell. Why then shouldn't this sense be present in some humans too?
Water is an extra-ordinary substance and we still have much to learn about it beyond it being simply H2O.

[jim360]

But then my assumptions are based on facts. What are yours based on? Personal accounts, as far as I can make out. It's perhaps a matter of taste, but for me personal accounts carry very little weight when it comes to matters of Science, or matters that can be tested by Science.

Every experiment ever taken needs to be scrutinised, because it would be a bad thing to base conclusions on flawed evidence. That scrutiny, though, needs to be more of just a hand-wavy "Is it possible you may have missed something?" Of course it's possible, but if you are going to do anything with that you would have to say what it is, how we could avoid missing it in future, and ideally also perform this further test yourself. You've already said earlier (effectively) that you don't know what, so presumably you can't manage the other two either. As long as this is the case, for you and for others, then I don't see that there is any problem in assuming that the experimental conclusions are valid. Granted I was perhaps dogmatic about it, but there are worse things to be dogmatic about.

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro

" We say they can 'smell' water but it doesn't seem to me to have a smell. Why then shouldn't this sense be present in some humans too? "

Do we? I never have.

"Water is an extra-ordinary substance and we still have much to learn about it beyond it being simply H2O"

Such as? Water is indeed amazing stuff, but we already know quite a lot about it....

[chrisgel]

Let me guess Khandro - Water has memory?

[naomi24]

Jim, //I don't see that there is any problem in assuming that the experimental conclusions are valid.//

There clearly is a problem in assuming the conclusions are valid. Perhaps you're not listening.

Got to go. Bye for now.

[jim360]

What is the problem in assuming that the experimental conclusions, in this case, are valid? They pass the usual tests -- replicated being one of them. Perhaps, if I may say so, you aren't listening to what the experiments are telling us. If you can spell out without some "might be missing something" what it is that is the problem, I'll listen. But you haven't so far.

Incidentally, this is why I get shirty sometimes about this. Because it seems as if some people just dismiss the results of experiment without ever explaining -- clearly, scientifically -- why they do so.

[pixie373]

There is no problem accepting the conclusions are valid. They are valid as proven - unless and until further evidence proves otherwise.

[woofgang]

I'll try.
lets take ball lightning. It was an observed phenomenon years and years and years before it could be replicated by experiment. That's a fact. its doesn't invalidate the experimental attempts, it just meant that there were other things that needed to be understood, discovered, invented before ball lightning could be replicated under experimental conditions.

[jim360]

Actually no-one has replicated ball lightning reliably under experimental conditions. The topic is outside my field of expertise, though (or, for that matter, anybody's), so who knows? Assuming the personal accounts are accurate, it's unlikely that anyone will be able to replicate this in an experiment because:

- the mechanism is unknown;
- the conditions in which it emerges are unknown;

This is superficially similar to dowsing, I suppose, but there is a key difference: no-one (or at least, no large group of people) has ever claimed that they can make ball lightning occur in a simple way, whereas dowsing apparently just needs a pair of hands and two sticks, or a bent piece of metal, or similar. In that sense it is easier to test, and then accept or reject, dowsing than it is ball lightning. Additionally there exist plausible mechanisms for ball lightning, but to date no explanation for dowsing is even plausible, let alone accepted.

The ease of the test is important -- and then the results are very clear. Dowsing does not stand up (so far, at least) to scrutiny. Ball lightning I don't know about, but it's still very much in the realm of being poorly understood.

[Khandro]

//Water has memory?// no, I was thinking of recent experiments on the effects of subjecting water to a very high charge of electricity etc.
LG; //we already know quite a lot about it....// so you do think there is nothing left to learn?

[woofgang]

ok, my bad sorry, I though they had, I think the gist of my argument stands though.

[jim360]

Yes, fair enough and no need to apologise.

[LazyGun]

@Khandro Does this
"LG; //we already know quite a lot about it....//"

Say there is nothing left to learn? Did I say "we know everything there is to know?"

That having been said, I would be surprised if there was anything transformative left to learn about its nature - something totally out of the left field, inexplicable by our current knowledge base.

Are you thinking of the water bridge?

[Khandro]

LG, //Are you thinking of the water bridge?// Yes, can you explain it?

[jim360]

Do you mean this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_thread_experiment

?

If so an explanation already exists:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4019

The phenomenon is a new one to me, though.