Logic vs. emotion

[aardvarkash10]

Originally Posted by c2cthomas

Pop a Fosters Mate - NO Worries!!!! Damn - I juz luv the kids from Oz and the Brits! I'm not being funny either - I've worked and lived with many - goooooood folks! Annnnd a good argument (or should I say a subject that is being thoroughly discussed) is considered "good form" and expected to be returned in kind. Very much like bartering for goods is expected in many parts of the world - it's just the way it is.

Us kiwis are like that too.

Still, nice to have the opinion from the south canadian outpost :-)

[c2cthomas]

Originally Posted by aardvarkash10

Us kiwis are like that too.

Still, nice to have the opinion from the south canadian outpost :-)

Eh - Nashville won the game against our North Canadian cousins the other evening. Next - we get to play with 'em here! After a diner of greasy Southern Fried Cooking washed down with some Tennessee Whiskey (JD Black is good) they won't be in any shape to stand up - let alone skate.

BTW - my apologizes for not spotting your kiwi flag - my fault. I'm a bit distracted watching the big news on the telly right now.

[aardvarkash10]

all good! :-)

[CopperTop]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Oh really? So what's the evidence then that Randi's better equipped than trained scientists in this instance?

Well in a way, it would make the point even better: that the experimental flaws could be spotted by a non-scientist, but not by the trained scientists.

The main point I'm making, is that the article linked to at the top of this thread seeks to brand anyone who rejects peer reviewed 'science' as a 'denier', and not only that, implies they are therefore a right wing simpleton! I simply don't have faith in scientists' ability to prevent their own biases and prejudices from entering their work, and as a relatively disinterested observer, I would say that Climate Change is probably the supreme example.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by CopperTop

Well in a way, it would make the point even better: that the experimental flaws could be spotted by a non-scientist, but not by the trained scientists.

OK, so that's a no then, there is no evidence. Thanks.

The main point I'm making, is that the article linked to at the top of this thread seeks to brand anyone who rejects peer reviewed 'science' as a 'denier', and not only that, implies they are therefore a right wing simpleton! I simply don't have faith in scientists' ability to prevent their own biases and prejudices from entering their work, and as a relatively disinterested observer, I would say that Climate Change is probably the supreme example.

Its clear you're not yet disinterested enough

[CopperTop]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

OK, so that's a no then, there is no evidence. Thanks.

What sort of evidence would you like?

Edit: Are you saying that the water memory effect was not 'debunked' because the team that did it were not exclusively trained scientists?

[abraxalito]

Funny boy. If I ask for the kind of evidence I like, that's not doing science, its being a slave to emotion. Just what this thread was established to warn against no?

<edit> No, I'm not saying that.

[pinkmouse]

I think a lot of the problems come down to a misrepresentation/misunderstanding of what science is. Much as we like to think, (emotionally), that science is the search for the ultimate truth, it isn't. Instead it's actually just a self correcting system that aims to discover how well we understand stuff, and is completely based on the expectations and bias of the experimenters, (it has to be, otherwise they wouldn't be interested enough in a subject to do the experiments).

In the example given above, eventually, other scientists would have attempted to disprove the results the same as Randi did, but the fact is that he had more emotional investment in the idea that homeopathy was bunkum, so he was more driven to conduct his own experiments, thus he was the first.

The scientific method is based on the weight of the evidence, not on individual results, though the the popular media would like us to believe so, as it makes a much better story, and one we can understand more readily in our narrative subconscious. Look at the MMR vaccination story here in the UK for an excellent example.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by pinkmouse

In the example given above, eventually, other scientists would have attempted to disprove the results the same as Randi did, but the fact is that he had more emotional investment in the idea that homeopathy was bunkum, so he was more driven to conduct his own experiments, thus he was the first.

And that very fact is, ironically, what disqualifies him from being able to do impartial science in this case. Which is what the article linked to says, in general terms.

[pinkmouse]

You didn't get my point in the first paragraph, there is no such thing as an unbiased experimenter. Never. Ever!

:edit: That's why we have the scientific method.