ChatterBank2 mins 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.
Hi Woofgang, I have to pick you up on your post at 10:21 where you said:
// ... phenomena that we currently don't have an explanation for, ball lightning is a good example and continental drift is another ... //
I know that I mentioned them both in my previous post, and that science has moved from dismissing them both as impossible to accepting that they both happen, but while ball lightning is still only vaguely understood to be some weird effect in plasma physics, the mechanism for continental drift is now completely understood on the basis of radioactive heating in the metal core. The earth is just slightly too big to let all that heat out by simple conduction, so it builds up until the mantle plasticises and begins to convect, which increases the flow of heat to equal the rate that it is being generated at. I did all this on a post-graduate course in the 1960's.
// ... phenomena that we currently don't have an explanation for, ball lightning is a good example and continental drift is another ... //
I know that I mentioned them both in my previous post, and that science has moved from dismissing them both as impossible to accepting that they both happen, but while ball lightning is still only vaguely understood to be some weird effect in plasma physics, the mechanism for continental drift is now completely understood on the basis of radioactive heating in the metal core. The earth is just slightly too big to let all that heat out by simple conduction, so it builds up until the mantle plasticises and begins to convect, which increases the flow of heat to equal the rate that it is being generated at. I did all this on a post-graduate course in the 1960's.
LazyGun. I don't know if this will work, but worth a try.
http://
WR.
http://
WR.
the "do" actually bert is the pluperfect tense which means both past present and future (I wrote better than I knew)
so to rephrase so you will understand..."we have, do, (oxford comma) and will observe phenomena for which we have no explanation" except if you write it that way you should use all the tenses of observe so you have to say.
"we have observed, do observe, and will observe phenomena for which we have no explanation" so using the pluperfect tense is briefer.
Yes its sunday, yes its hot yes I am having a pedantic fit.... but bert, you didn't "have" to pick me up....you chose to ;-)
so to rephrase so you will understand..."we have, do, (oxford comma) and will observe phenomena for which we have no explanation" except if you write it that way you should use all the tenses of observe so you have to say.
"we have observed, do observe, and will observe phenomena for which we have no explanation" so using the pluperfect tense is briefer.
Yes its sunday, yes its hot yes I am having a pedantic fit.... but bert, you didn't "have" to pick me up....you chose to ;-)
@ Khandro, Nope, I cannot. Its a very interesting phenomenon. Water has several seemingly anomalous properties, derived in part from its tendency to form partial hydrogen bonds with other water molecules etc.So this electrostatic attraction and the passage of a high voltage through it must act to create more stable bonds, I would have thought - And the bonds and structure have to be sufficiently strong to counter surface tension and the force of gravity.
Water is strange, no question. In its solid form, less dense than as water - go figure :) Gives rise to a lovely chinking sound though, when added to a decent malt...
Water is strange, no question. In its solid form, less dense than as water - go figure :) Gives rise to a lovely chinking sound though, when added to a decent malt...
I think I'll try to avoid coming back here as it will just make me angry, worked up and incoherent, but in summary:
-- We should always question the conclusions of science, because that's how it works and moves on.
-- The questioning method should, really, be based on scientific criticisms. Does the evidence stand up to the usual tests? Such as statistical, or whether or not the method was a good one, or if the results are replicated.
-- If the answers these questions are such that there is no reason to fault the experiment, then I think the rational thing to do is to base your world view on the results.
In this way it can be in a sense correct to "reject" ideas that later on become acceptable to science, if at the time those ideas had little or no evidence to support them. In the particular case of dowsing, that is how things stand at the moment. Not a single claim has stood up to scrutiny. Nor is there any reason to believe that this will change.
I suppose you can still say, correctly, that "we don't know". But that is, I think, misleading and doesn't fully capture the current picture. We do know that there is no credible evidence so far. That tips the scale firmly in the favour of doubting any and all further claims.
It would, of course, only need a single dowser to demonstrate his or her ability in a controlled experiment to turn this picture on its head. If and when that happens, I'll accept the changed picture, I hope. Not to do so would be closed-minded indeed. On the other hand, I can say with a good deal of confidence that it is highly unlikely that this will happen. That isn't being closed-minded -- it's just rational.
-- We should always question the conclusions of science, because that's how it works and moves on.
-- The questioning method should, really, be based on scientific criticisms. Does the evidence stand up to the usual tests? Such as statistical, or whether or not the method was a good one, or if the results are replicated.
-- If the answers these questions are such that there is no reason to fault the experiment, then I think the rational thing to do is to base your world view on the results.
In this way it can be in a sense correct to "reject" ideas that later on become acceptable to science, if at the time those ideas had little or no evidence to support them. In the particular case of dowsing, that is how things stand at the moment. Not a single claim has stood up to scrutiny. Nor is there any reason to believe that this will change.
I suppose you can still say, correctly, that "we don't know". But that is, I think, misleading and doesn't fully capture the current picture. We do know that there is no credible evidence so far. That tips the scale firmly in the favour of doubting any and all further claims.
It would, of course, only need a single dowser to demonstrate his or her ability in a controlled experiment to turn this picture on its head. If and when that happens, I'll accept the changed picture, I hope. Not to do so would be closed-minded indeed. On the other hand, I can say with a good deal of confidence that it is highly unlikely that this will happen. That isn't being closed-minded -- it's just rational.
In terms of the "water bridge" effect -- depends what you mean by a full explanation, doesn't it? It provides an explanation that is apparently generally accepted as being close to the full picture, but there are some gaps. Then again, that's pretty much true of everything in Science. I don't expect that there will ever be a full explanation, that has no gaps or holes or incompleteness, for anything ever.
jim i used to feel the same over in R and S, then i realised that the important big things don't need me to stand up for them to the point of rage and incoherence on internet fora....purely because they are the big things, whether known or unknown, they will outlast today, misunderstanding, the views of others, the whole shebang.
In the specific case of Water Divining there is good evidence that it doesn't work.
I saw a test with a whole bunch of water diviners ranging from experienced to novice.
They were asked whether they felt they could divine a glass of water under a bucket. - To a man they all agreed this would be an easy test and felt sure they could do that (Which I think was interesting in itself)
So they were given 5 buckets and asked to divine the presence of water - You'll never guess what 1 in 5 was right!
Now you might say 'Oh well you might have the wrong conditions or the wrong dowsers' and make all sorts of excuses but they all thought this was a fair test and were amazed at their failure (apart from the 1 in 5 of course) but water divining is an extra-ordinary claim and that requires extra-ordinary evidence.
Science requires a test to be falsifiablle and divining certainly is - the above experiment shows that it is.
Show me that test (or similar) being done with 90% accuracy and maybe Science will take it seriously until then the burden of proof lies firmly with the magicians - which let's face it is what divining is!
I saw a test with a whole bunch of water diviners ranging from experienced to novice.
They were asked whether they felt they could divine a glass of water under a bucket. - To a man they all agreed this would be an easy test and felt sure they could do that (Which I think was interesting in itself)
So they were given 5 buckets and asked to divine the presence of water - You'll never guess what 1 in 5 was right!
Now you might say 'Oh well you might have the wrong conditions or the wrong dowsers' and make all sorts of excuses but they all thought this was a fair test and were amazed at their failure (apart from the 1 in 5 of course) but water divining is an extra-ordinary claim and that requires extra-ordinary evidence.
Science requires a test to be falsifiablle and divining certainly is - the above experiment shows that it is.
Show me that test (or similar) being done with 90% accuracy and maybe Science will take it seriously until then the burden of proof lies firmly with the magicians - which let's face it is what divining is!
There is so much stuff that is testable with a reasonable degree of certainty that the test will mean something, that most scientists (who have an interest in that area) would rather do something that would yield useful results. Not so much questioning their conclusions as questioning their common sense.
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.