somebody wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4b111fbd$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>>> Disproving a theory is every bit as important as proving a theory. By
>>>> proving that the psychic phenominon does not exist, now nobody else
>>>> needs to study it. This is beneficial.
> 
>>> If *nobody else* studying it is good, an unqualified *nobody* studying
> it is
>>> even better, is it not?
> 
>> The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or not
>> is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything that
>> sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
> 
> Person A: I can read minds.
> Scientist: Hypothesis: Some people can read minds. Sure, let's test it.
> - Test yields a negative result -
> Person A: I was off that day. I cannot read minds on Fridays.
> Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test on a Monday.
> - Test yields a negative result -

After a few of these, you start asking questions like "why does the day of 
the week matter."

Just like you say "Things fall at the same speed."  "Well, not a feather and 
a hammer."  "Why not?"

> Person A: The room was too cold. It doesn't work in the cold.

Scientist: Why not?

> So what did the scientist "prove"? 

That's not how science works.

> Even if she tests a million people with
> negative results, she can not conclude that reading minds is not possible

That's not how science works. The scientists investigating the claim weren't 
trying to prove it's impossible. They were trying to find people who could 
do it. If you run out of people who say "I'm willing to prove I can do it", 
or you test a statistically large sample, you can come back and say "we are 
99% sure nobody can do this."  You don't have to prove that remaining 1%, 
any more than you have to prove a drug always works for everyone before you 
can start prescribing it.

> The supposed hypothesis stated at the
> beginning was patently inadequate and nonsensical,

And what hypotheses did the actual scientists actually investigate? Or are 
you just making up straw men and then knocking them down?

> A claim itself is not evidence (unlike what some people here seem to think).

It *is* evidence. It's just not *scientific* evidence.

If I claimed I drove to Las Vegas last week, would you doubt my claim? Would 
you insist it must be nonsense because I'm the only one making that claim?

> With paranormal, there are only personal/subjective claims.

Yes. And that's evidence. It's just not scientific evidence. So then you 
apply the scientific method to see if the personal claims are actually 
scientific evidence.

I can measure cold fusion or irregularities in the orbit of mercury too, and 
until you run through the scientific process, it's also personal/subjective 
claims.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message