No Wonder Science Is Hopelessly Stuck

So here's a video from this generation's American science oracle: Neil D. Tyson

He does a perfect job elucidating us on the subject of the miracle of the modern scientific approach.

No wonder science is stuck in neutral in terms of figuring out anything that is too illusive to catch on video tape. I really think he is a colossal knucklehead.

Reminds me of what my father used to say when he came across a real idiot. 

He would say- "He couldn't find his own ass with both hands"

Always loved that saying... 

It's funny when sceptics, in the course of pontificating about a critical approach to evidence, come out with a piece of nonsense they've evidently swallowed whole without even thinking about it - like the apocryphal story about the origin of the phrase "dead ringer".

Come to think of it, the line about eyewitness testimony being unreliable, and therefore scientific advance being possible only when the telescope and the microscope were invented, is just as stupid. As though the reason eyewitness testimony is unreliable is that eyes don't work properly.

So here's a video from this generation's American science oracle: Neil D. Tyson

He does a perfect job elucidating us on the subject of the miracle of the modern scientific approach.

No wonder science is stuck in neutral in terms of figuring out anything that is too illusive to catch on video tape. I really think he is a colossal knucklehead.

Reminds me of what my father used to say when he came across a real idiot. 

He would say- "He couldn't find his own ass with both hands"

Always loved that saying... 

Come to think of it, the line about eyewitness testimony being unreliable, and therefore scientific advance being possible only when the telescope and the microscope were invented, is just as stupid. As though the reason eyewitness testimony is unreliable is that eyes don't work properly.

And yet the researchers members here champion Radin, Sheldrake... all resort to using science. Keep that in mind next time you both gripe

And yet the researchers members here champion Radin, Sheldrake... all resort to using science. Keep that in mind next time you both gripe

I'm the last person who would gripe about the use of the scientific method. The problem is that some high-profile sceptics fall woefully short of the standards they proclaim so loudly - in terms of factual accuracy, logic and balance.

I'm only too happy to read high-quality sceptical comment, which can only be beneficial. But there seems to be a kind of Gresham's Law of scepticism at work. Intelligent scepticism tends to be drowned out by simplistic, tendentious and often publicity-hungry pseudosceptics.

And yet the researchers members here champion Radin, Sheldrake... all resort to using science. Keep that in mind next time you both gripe

It's not the scientific method that's broken really. It's the inflexibility of materialist scientists that is.

It's not the scientific method that's broken really. It's the inflexibility of materialist scientists that is.

Could this perceived inflexibility be caused by the lack of good objective evidence? What is stopping you or anyone that makes such a gripe from doing psi science research? This complaint comes up a lot and what none of you know is if solid evidence was found scientists would flock like flies to this type research if there was solid evidence, but that won't happen until then or maybe never. So get up off your duff and research.

So one of Neil's arguments is that people see bright lights when they die because of operation table lights.
That's a pretty weak explanation, doesn't count all the people who die outside of a operating table.
Most people who die, I would guess, don't die on the table and some who die during surgeries are anesthetized and shouldn't be seeing anything. 
People die by drowning under completely black water or at night and see lights.

I'm the last person who would gripe about the use of the scientific method. The problem is that some high-profile sceptics fall woefully short of the standards they proclaim so loudly - in terms of factual accuracy, logic and balance.

I'm only too happy to read high-quality sceptical comment, which can only be beneficial. But there seems to be a kind of Gresham's Law of scepticism at work. Intelligent scepticism tends to be drowned out by simplistic, tendentious and often publicity-hungry pseudosceptics.

Read my reply to jkmac.

This complaint comes up a lot and what none of you know is if solid evidence was found scientists would flock like flies to this type research if there was solid evidence, but that won't happen until then or maybe never.

That's a point of view, certainly. 

But whenever I hear it expressed, I can't help thinking of the example I've raised here in the past - the Global Consciousness Project. Prima facie that is extremely strong evidence for the existence of a psi effect (or an anomalous effect if people prefer). Unless those researchers are lying, it can't be explained by the "file drawer" effect or by "p-hacking" or anything like that. Perhaps there is a flaw somewhere in the analysis that can explain the results, but all the data are freely available to anyone who wants to look at them, and no one has discovered such a flaw so far.

To be fair, that may be because not many people have looked. But it's certainly not true that scientists would flock to investigate any apparently strong evidence for psi. Most scientists aren't interested in psi at all. Most of the scientists with a strong interest are sympathetic to the existence of psi and are working on it. Most of the others are strongly sceptical, and are more interested in debunking than objective investigation. That leaves a pretty small number of interested but uncommitted scientists in the middle, and no doubt they have limited time and resources available.