Hi Marshall, The smartest man with whom I have had a personal relationship---he was tested at the Menninger (sp?) Clinic and went off the charts at 400---told me: "The scientific menthod is a lot like grabbing nature by the throat and demanding an answer".
James Osbourne Holmes FTNWO -----Original Message----- From: Marshall Dudley <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, May 21, 2000 6:55 PM Subject: CS>This is interesting in several respects >This was posted by Brian to the wanderers list: > >As a scientist myself, I hope people appreciate the fact that the scientific >method is inflexible, requires replication, and is based on testing >hypothesis using rigorous statistical techniques. It is also mainly >correlational (A is associated with B) when it comes to human affairs, and >becomes causual (A causes B) in the more mechanical area (yeast makes dough >rise). When you look at studies in the social sciences (so called "soft" >sciences), the amount of explanation provided (what is called the "explained >variance" or "R squared" value) is typically in the 30% or so range, leaving >a whole bunch unexplained (this is given in the form of an equation, such as >Y = a + bX, where Y is what you are trying to predict and X is what you use >to predict it). So, prediction is the goal using sets of observations of Y >and a lot of Xs (Xs derived from your theory). (For example, when I >discussed my research many years ago with my brother who was then a >biochemist and specialist in donut dough, he laughed at me because he had R >squared in the 99.5% range compared to my 40% range. Of course, people are >more complex than donut dough, but that made no difference to him; he was a >"hard" scientist and I a mere "soft" one.) > >The Y you choose to investigate (predict) is determined by what is deemed >important in your theory in your field of expertise. Because science is a >type of club, if your Y isn't accepted as important in your club, Y don't >get published, don't get a good job, and don't get respected. Thus, the >"hobby" research into "paranormal" experience by physicists. In a real >sense, one has to be aware that it is all very political just like a lot of >life. Not only the Ys but the Xs are also up to critical review, as you >have to be also to document that they are based on accepted theory and are >appropriately measured (have to be reliable and valid and all that). > >Years ago there was the assumption that there existed an entity called the >"unobserved observer," i.e., the scientist. It was presumed that she or he >was a neutral (objective) collector of facts (a fact being a valid >observation of datum). It was never questioned that the observer had any >effect on the facts measured, particularly in the "real" sciences of physics >(more problematic in the social sciences). Now that quantum physics has >changed all that, it has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole affair, >because now the observer becomes an X in the equation (in a real sense). >(Dr. Wolf's books such as PARALLEL UNIVERSES are helpful here and he writes >so one has a shot at understanding all this.) It also becomes challenging >for these hard scientists to have to deal with the reality that the act of >measuring something creates it or that particles have consciousness >independent of time/space or that events in the "future" create events in >the "past" and all those wonderful and previously dismissed as metaphysical >realities. It is wonderfully ironic that their hard science has to deal >with what has heretofore been regarded as so much metaphysical nonsense. > >I take the position that the scientific method is as much a religion (set of >belief system as to what is True) as any other religion. In this religion, >one has to have total belief in it or one is not an accepted member of the >religious community. Now in this religion, you have to believe that what is >"real" is defined by what you can measure. What is "real" and "significant" >is only what you can measure and replicate. Realities which one cannot >measure with the current tools of measurement do not exist. Since the >current tools are 3D based, there is no 4D, etc. In a very real sense, the >whole belief system is tool-based. Also, it is helpful to remember that in >this belief system, one never "proves" anything. One posits the hypothesis >(guess) that Y is not associated by X (the null hypothesis), and if it is >more often than expected based on the presumed lack of association, one >makes the conclusion that the null hypothesis is rejected at a particular >significant level. (This is not just an academic argument. It has effects >on us all. For example, this is how the tobacco industry could get away >with taking the position that tobacco did not cause cancer. Cause is >impossible to prove in this scientific method unless X results in Y every >time. One observation of X not resulting in Y destroys the argument that X >causes Y, and one is left with saying that X is associated with Y. While >the world watched in disbelief, the CEOs of the major tobacco firms could >say with straight faces that they did not believe that tobacco caused >cancer. Having worked for a major tobacco company as a marketing research >manager, I have some experience in this area. It was interesting to have >conversations with the chemists. They were firm in the scientific >conviction that tobacco smoke has no "taste" and could prove it. People >might think that it does, but that didn't make it real. On the marketing >research side, of course, we dealt with "taste" all the time. We conducted >"taste tests" all the time. It didn't matter that it was not real, what >mattered was that consumers believed that it was real. The company changed >the tobacco blends in the brands all the time. We never told the loyal >consumers. They never knew it. They also never knew that all sorts of >stuff was sprayed on the tobacco (called "top dressing") to make it easier >to inhale (not choke). This included sugary stuff like cocoa. The mix of >stuff sprayed on the tobacco was and remains a trade secret. So, here is >another reason why the CEOs could believe that tobacco did not cause cancer. > For all they knew it might have been the stuff sprayed on the tobacco! >This, in fact, has been the belief of some Native Americans who regard >natural tobacco as sacred. Another interesting fact was that we had the >express directive to not investigate health-related factors associated with >smoking. We did not ask questions we did not want answers to. We were told >that we were not in the health business, but in the consumer products >business (i.e., image business) manufacturing and distributing a legitimate >farm crop. They had no data on health factors because not only did they not >ask about them but when they by chance showed up, the data was destroyed on >the rationale that the consumer didn't properly answer the question, that >is, gave us information we did not ask about. In any case, all original >data was always shredded and only the final reports were saved. All data, >of course, belonged to the company so it took the position that it had every >legal right to get rid of it. They also had the policy that one did not >discuss health issues with anyone in the company, never kept written notes, >etc.) > >The tool-based scientific method was never made to tackle spiritual >realities. What is distressing to a lot of folks, nonetheless, is the >belief held so dear by many Western scientists that it is the ONLY yardstick >to define what is real and not real. It is a "holier than thou" attitude. >Not only that but they seem to enjoy making ordinary folks feel stupid >because they believe in these "non-sense" things and destroy the careers of >scientists who would dare share in these "delusions." > >So, it is a wonderful modern irony that rigorous science must now face the >challenges facing quantum physics and all the nonsensical realities facing >it. They have to face the challenge of the dictum of "as below, so above" >or "as subatomic, so atomic" and all that. It is also refreshing to hear >some physicists saying that although they see no theoretical need for a God >to create the universe(s), it would be impossible without God to maintain it >(them). > >Blessings, > >Brian > > > >-- >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: >[email protected] -or- [email protected] >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > >To post, address your message to: [email protected] >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > >
