The continuing debate between [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Jed: > > > > If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific > > > -- yet. You have to reproduce it. If you cannot > > > reproduce it, then eventually you must conclude > > > that you did not see it. > > > >Using your own words, that's absolutely ridiculous! > > > >Tell that to all those pesky UFOs that come flitting in and > >out of our tiny sphere of influence. > > Those are observations, not experiments. The rules are different for > observations, when we have no power to trigger or influence events.
Unfortunately, many UFO skeptics of all kinds of anomolous phenomenon use this tactic as an excuse to dismiss spurious observations, claiming it can't be be real because it isn't (or can't be) scientifically verified. To these skeptics it boils down to: Nuff said...Case closed. > Astronomy is also observational, since no one can trigger a > super-nova. (Astronomers would LOVE to trigger one if they > could!) Astronomers can improve their instruments and devise > new tests, and new ways to parse the data. The study of UFOs > will not progress, and doubts about the existence of UFOs > will not be laid to rest, until the people studying > UFOs devise better instruments to capture the events in > more detail, more reliably, on more occasions. In that sense, > reproducibility does play a role even in purely observational > sciences. > > > >Tell that to all the witnesses who saw what they saw, but > >cannot offer any reproducible proof of what they saw in a > >repeatable format. > > As Francis Bacon pointed out, the unaided human senses alone > are not a reliable source of information. Until the events are > recorded on instruments they will not exist as far as science > is concerned. Indeed, I have often been fooled by my own personal interpretations of external phenomenon. OTOH, my human senses are the only instruments I have in which to interface with the universe. However, as you have pointed out, Bacon stated "...the unaided human senses ALONE [caps mine] are not a reliable source of information." The key word being ALONE. Completly abandoning one's personal senses and experiences, as a method to assess external phenonenon would leave one a pretty hopeless mess in my view. Personally, while I truly admire your tenacious capacity to stick to what appears to be repeatable objective observational details for proof I still feel that you might rely just a tad too heavily on objective experimental evidence as the ultimate means to prove the existence (or lack) of all kinds of anomolous phenomenon, particularly at the expense of what your own personal interpretations might have been suggesting to you all along. I'm reminded of some of the observations your mother (whom I wish I had had the chance to have met) had described to you as she neared her own death, but prehaps I'm getting dangeriously off-topic here. Call me picky! > >What a convenient way to disregard valuable information. > > Alas, it is the only way to make sense of any information. It > is a shame we cannot elucidate the nature of things from the > human senses and experience alone, but experience teaches us > that experience is not reliable. If acute intelligence, keen > observation and astounding intuition were a reliable > guide to nature, people would have devised starships > thousands of years ago. People have always had these mental > abilities, but they never did us much good until we harnessed > them to instruments, machines, logic and objective methodology. > > - Jed Indeed, there is much truth to this. Never the less I disagree with your contention that it is the "only way" to make sense of any information. That's just a tad too absolute a conclusion for me to buy. For example, it's often been my highly subjective and idle day dreams that spuriously flit across my consciousness like UFOs that have pointed me in the direction of another personal discovery, or how to conduct an experiment, or how to resolve some nasty program code, or design a simulation. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
