2017-08-30, 01:36 AM
I wonder how far one can take the whole extraordinary claims gambit? Suppose someone was skeptical of your cognitive abilities, could you provide extraordinary evidence, To the contrary?
(2017-08-29, 08:18 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]There's no special form of science for extraordinary claims. What it means though is when such a claim is made extra care needs to be taken to make certain the result demonstrates the claim and not something else entirely or even sloppy research. Was it to you I suggested to look up faster than light neutrinos?
(2017-08-30, 01:36 AM)Oleo Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how far one can take the whole extraordinary claims gambit? Suppose someone was skeptical of your cognitive abilities, could you provide extraordinary evidence, To the contrary?
(2017-08-30, 12:08 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]So when proving "regular science" stuff need not take that special care? Oh now I see....
It's kinda like where some argue for the death penalty in cases where the person is "definitely guilty". You know, like when several people absolutely saw the person do it. The light was excellent. The witness of the highest caliber, like a judge or a movie star or something. And definitely the witness wasn't drinking or anything.
In those particular special cases where we REALLY know the bad guy did it, they should be subject to the death penalty.
For all the other cases where we are less sure, we should just give them life in prison. Like that right?
Beware of double standards. They are fraught with danger.
(2017-08-29, 10:42 PM)Oleo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm skeptical of the claim that the fiber optic cable was installed backward.
I'm also skeptical of the claim that that photons have no mass but are "curved" by gravity.
But I'm even more skeptical that extraordinary evidence would offer any illumination on either subject.
(2017-08-30, 10:33 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]No, it's there would be fewer other causes to eliminate. Did you look up faster than light neutrons?
(2017-08-30, 07:59 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]It just happened that a team of scientists found a result at odds with well established physics. Nothing really out of the norm, it happens every other day and that's why peer-review and replication exist within the method. As soon as the original experimental setup was reviewed errors were immediately found and a replication attempt failed, providing results consistent with the known speed of light.
So, in the end, the "extra care" is not extra at all. It's just the ordinary need for replication which is already part of the scientific process.
Cheers