(2017-08-28, 11:45 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I said extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary claim, so this is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I would say the multiverse and string theory.
It's obvious you know. Then why is it you don't know what the adage means?
(2017-08-29, 12:44 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It's obvious you know. Then why is it you don't know what the adage means?
It seems pretty clear he knows what it means, his point is that "extraordinary" is a subjective descriptor.
Sam Harris, for example, would agree with me that materialism is an extraordinary as well as nonsensical claim.
Quote:Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.
(2017-08-29, 12:44 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It's obvious you know. Then why is it you don't know what the adage means?
I am asking you to actually describe to me what extraordinary evidence entails for you. What would qualify as that?
Something different than, you know, just saying that it's "extraordinary".
(2017-08-29, 12:36 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really comprehend what you've written? Your description is a fine example why psi is extraordinary.
Sorry, I don't understand your objection. The part you have colored in red was referring to consciousness not PSI.
Given the miniscule knowledge we have on the nature of consciousness it's pretty arbitrary to define PSI claims as extraordinary. Anything we don't understand is literally extraordinary, as in "out of the ordinary knowledge".
But that's not the point. The point is that there aren't two sciences, one for "normal claims" and one for "extraordinary" ones. If they existed the former would just be bad science.
Quote:What the adage means is be cautious before making grand claims. Did you hear about the faster than light neutrinos that weren't?
Then you should explain why the level of evidence used for something like the Higgs boson (or faster than light neutrinos) would not be sufficient for "consciousness nudging the collapse of the wave function".
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2012doubleslit.pdf
http://deanradin.blogspot.it/2012/07/one-more-time.html
Given the principle that science helps us "not fooling ourselves", if PSI claims require extra evidence then our sciences are founded on a level of evidence that still allow us to fool ourselves. Is this what you believe?
And if so, how can you claim that PSI is extraordinary given that most of our sciences are built on shaky foundations?
(2017-08-29, 10:33 AM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]And if so, how can you claim that PSI is extraordinary given that most of our sciences are built on shaky foundations?
Could you elaborate? I don't completely disagree,
given my own look into this issue, but I'd say applied science rests on a ground that is at least somewhat strong?
While I'm happy that the thread I founded has proved so wildly popular
, this question about "extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence" isn't really what I had in mind when I did so. After all, the sceptical claim I was addressing is that, so far from meeting an
extraordinary standard, the evidence for psi hasn't even met the
ordinary standard of replicability. (I do think there's some truth in the criticism, insofar as there's a difficulty in replication that needs to be explained, though I don't think it's clear what the explanation is - whether it's no psi, capricious psi, or psi that would be well behaved if only we could understand it well enough.)
On the "extraordinary" thing, it sounds sensible enough on an everyday level. If a man calls at your door claiming to be from the planet Venus, you're going to give his identification a closer look than if he says he's come to read the meter. But I'm not sure it really makes that much sense as a scientific principle. I think the real problem is that some scientists have fallen into the lazy assumption that a hypothesis is "proved", for once and for all, if the probability on the null hypothesis is less than the magic figure of 5%. Of course that's nonsense. On that standard, the null hypothesis is going to fail one time in twenty, just by chance. Ironically, I think parapsychologists are less likely to fall into that trap than conventional scientists, because there's more awareness of the issue. But they're not immune, either.
(2017-08-29, 02:59 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Could you elaborate? I don't completely disagree, given my own look into this issue, but I'd say applied science rests on a ground that is at least somewhat strong?
Sure, I was playing along with Steve001's assertions.
If there exists a special form of science for "extraordinary claims", which would allegedly be the ultimate method for avoiding to fool ourselves, then we're admitting that the science for "normal claims" leaves the door open for errors, thus making it rest on pretty shaky grounds.
Of course I don't think that's true, and our applied sciences seem to confirm it.
Thus the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a nothing more than a catchy slogan that doesn't add anything new to the method.
Makes sense?
(2017-08-29, 06:02 PM)Bucky Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, I was playing along with Steve001's assertions.
If there exists a special form of science for "extraordinary claims", which would allegedly be the ultimate method for avoiding to fool ourselves, then we're admitting that the science for "normal claims" leaves the door open for errors, thus making it rest on pretty shaky grounds.
Of course I don't think that's true, and our applied sciences seem to confirm it.
Thus the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a nothing more than a catchy slogan that doesn't add anything new to the method.
Makes sense?
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?
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.
(2017-08-29, 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?
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.