Us kiwis are like that too.
Still, nice to have the opinion from the south canadian outpost
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.
Last edited:
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.
OK, so that's a no then, there is no evidence. Thanks.
Its clear you're not yet disinterested enough
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?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
@Abraxalito
Well I don't know what sort of evidence there could be, short of an actual instance of Randi finding an experimental error that had eluded a trained scientist. (What's so special about 'trained scientists' anyway? Aren't we all trained scientists, to a certain level?) Presumably that evidence would have to be peer reviewed by other trained scientists to make it kosher. But I didn't mention Randi in the first place.
According to the article I linked to, it was the editor of Nature John Maddox not Randi who, at first failed spotted the experimental flaws, and published the paper. He then realised the potential for experimental bias error after the first positive repeat of the experiment.
He is a trained scientist, I think:
John Maddox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I only mentioned this case because it seemed to show a paper that had got through the reviewing process and was then shown to be probably faulty, but only because it was so contentious in the first place. You may say that this is evidence that the scientific method does work, but of course, by definition, any faulty experiment that wasn't spotted... wasn't spotted.
And even when an error is found, there may be an inbuilt hurdle to getting it published:
Backwards step on looking into the future | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian
Well I don't know what sort of evidence there could be, short of an actual instance of Randi finding an experimental error that had eluded a trained scientist. (What's so special about 'trained scientists' anyway? Aren't we all trained scientists, to a certain level?) Presumably that evidence would have to be peer reviewed by other trained scientists to make it kosher. But I didn't mention Randi in the first place.
According to the article I linked to, it was the editor of Nature John Maddox not Randi who, at first failed spotted the experimental flaws, and published the paper. He then realised the potential for experimental bias error after the first positive repeat of the experiment.
He is a trained scientist, I think:
John Maddox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I only mentioned this case because it seemed to show a paper that had got through the reviewing process and was then shown to be probably faulty, but only because it was so contentious in the first place. You may say that this is evidence that the scientific method does work, but of course, by definition, any faulty experiment that wasn't spotted... wasn't spotted.
And even when an error is found, there may be an inbuilt hurdle to getting it published:
Backwards step on looking into the future | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian
You didn't get my point in the first paragraph, there is no such thing as an unbiased experimenter. Never. Ever!
So you're saying we should deliberately choose a biassed experimenter, when we have choice of others who are less biassed? If not, then what are you saying in this case?
Indeed it is, and Maddox was forward thinking enough to publish it,even though he personally disbelieved it, just in case it was true! As I said, it's all down to weight of evidence, not individual experiments.
The thing is, we don't have a choice as to who does an experiment. People study stuff they are interested in, and in the process form their own theories and biases, and then they do their experiments. All we can hope is that enough other people with different expectations do similar work so that a balanced understanding of the subject can be revealed. And in the long term, this paradigm works out pretty well, as history has proven.
Last edited:
I think you may be suffering from a lack of imaginative thinking here
. How about that Randi had done original research in the area of molecular immunology for himself? That he had several peer-reviewed papers to his name? Its a pretty specialised field after all.
Perhaps you're unaware of the salient details of this particular story then. I'll bow out. In the meantime, you might find this interesting if you have time - its rather long at 74min : Video & Audio: Jacques Benveniste at the Cavendish - Metadata
Sorry, I thought you asked for evidence that a non-scientist (Randi) could be better equipped to find an experimental error than a 'trained scientist'.I think you may be suffering from a lack of imaginative thinking here
I think we are agreeing with other, basically. But my thought was that this might be an exception, and that there could be other dodgy research that goes through 'on the nod'. I am particularly suspicious of any research that draws conclusions from statistics or mathematical modelling, and can never be tested.
Obviously not. I asked :
So what's the evidence then that Randi's better equipped than trained scientists in this instance?
You think that's the same as your version? Really?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.