At 03:18 PM 11/18/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
See http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7618367/ Really funny, and all
too true, video on pseudoskepticism.
I like especially the last lines, where the cool and collected
scientist blows him away by saying, in response to his comment
about aliens, "I know aliens are real because I have seen them."
This is a computer animation by Daniel Drasin, author of "Zen and
the Art of Debunkery"
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html
<http://www.eskimo.com/%7Ebillb/pathskep.html>
- Jed
He's right on at the beginning, and the general principles are right
on to the very end, but.... it gets a little pointy and specific
about UFO debunkery. S'okay.
Interesting that the video has a possible reference to this in the "I
know aliens are real because I've seen them."
Of course, I know that aliens are not real because I have not seen them.
Just kidding. I don't know, I merely assume.
Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence, except as
a matter of efficiency. I.e., I'm not going to rush out and start
doing UFO research because I see some tabloid proclaim UFO EVIDENCE
FOUND! ALIEN BODIES!
Or even because someone tells me they were abducted. But I'd never
ridicule someone for saying something like that. What the experience
means might be something of interest, and it might not. But we never
know without actual investigation, and debunkery is not
investigation, it is polemic and political "research" with a clear
bias. If someone has a hypothesis that, say, psychic claims are
fraud, then if they are scientists, they will attempt to prove that
they are real, they will give that idea every possible room to show.
And in the end, only if they have shown actual fraud, by showing the
mechanism and evidence for fraud, not merely failure to replicate --
which can be nothing other than failure!
I've seen it: they will claim that this is unfair, because it is
impossible to prove a negative.
That's right. And it isn't unfair, it's reality. Weirdly enough, this
was stated in the 1989 ERAB report, if I'm correct, that it would not
be possible to prove there is no such thing as cold fusion. So ...
why was it claimed that it was proven?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but that's a
personal standard and not an objective, scientific one. It's a guide
to personal efficiency. "Extraordinary" is not an objective
scientific property, it's an opinion, and applying this principle to
reject anything "extraordinary" is simply a device for reinforcing
one's opinions.
Cold fusion is a beautiful example because we can know, with
hindsight, exactly what mistake was made: it was assumed that CF
would, if real, be the same reaction as was well-known. But it was
either not that reaction (most likely) or some unknown factor caused
different behavior. The unknown, by definition, is not predictable.
They assumed predictability.
It's a bit similar to Drosnin's suggestion of claiming that aliens
would behave like human beings. And that if they did not, instead of
concluding that they were not human beings, conclude that they do not exist.
The recent fiasco on Physics Today had the rejection of Storms'
review because Storms writes objectively about biological
transmutation. He does not claim that biological transmutation is
real, he obviously refrains from that. But it's reported, and the
apparent evidence is strong, but, as he quite aptly notes, unconfirmed. So ...
this was a blatant attempt to impeach Storms because he is not a
pseudoskeptic, because he does not instinctively and immediately
reject biological transmutation as impossible, but respects the
normal scientific process. These guys are completely transparent.
And, with time, this will become more and more obvious, because they
do not have the power to stem the tide, as much as they try.
If cold fusion is real, then biological transmutation could be
possible. Indeed, it might almost be surprising if it were not.
Proteins are clever little constructions. But ... Vyosotskii is
unconfirmed. What he reports is striking. I'd say its definitely
worth serious investigation. And that's all. Not "belief." A fair
opportunity, a respectful consideration, etc., etc.
If his findings were artifact, what artifact? The pseudoskepics want
to substitute just what Drosnin claims: armchair debunking instead of
actual scientific work, as was done with N-rays and polywater.
Hey, if they were right about N-rays and polywater, why, no need to
bother to continue to do actual research. Just debunk anything new,
and you are probably right.
They might even be right about that, some of the time. The problem is
that the exceptions can literally be killers. Particularly in
medicine. Semmelweiss is an old example....
Modern example, allegedly still controversial -- I don't think so! --
natural saturated fat as a cause of heart disease. My guess is that
the effect of that bit of Bad Science has resulted in millions of
premature deaths from diabetes and heart disease....
And I've seen the same insane "debunkery" over this as over cold
fusion, the same vicious condemnation of researchers and writers as
quacks and frauds.
Hmmm.... http://semmelweis.org/
We have some of this here in our own little back yard. Dardik
condemned as a "quack" because of his loss of his New York license to
practice -- though he still can practice in other states, I believe,
and this seems to have been an anti-unorthodox medicine hit job.
Dardik was a highly reputable and successful cardiologist, famous,
actually, just for that. And he came up with some new ideas that seem
to be very popular with most of his patients, including a certain
entrepreneur who has seriously funded Energetics Technologies.
Is he a "quack"? Well, his ideas seem to me like a generic
understanding of some aspects of physical process. An approach, not
exactly a scientific theory. A practical approach. My guess is that
in some areas it works. Medicine is mostly an art, a huge amount of
supposedly scientific medical research is not, it's been rather well shown.
I'd expect Dardik's ideas to be more true in medicine than with cold
fusion, in fact. But maybe. Sometimes new thinking is effective even
if the basis turns out to not be true, as such. It encourages us to
try new things.
Condemning Dardik because of a superficial mention of his medical
past is debunkery. And we know who engaged in it.
