Questioning The Conclusions Of Science

[naomi24]

This question arises from the discussion in R&S on the dubious practice of Water Divining. Sometimes the conclusions of science result not from positive evidence that the subject is invalid, but from absence of evidence. Whilst I know the scientifically minded will say ‘until evidence is forthcoming, I won’t consider the possibility’, but the question is do those who accept the conclusions of science ever waver and consider the possibility that evidence could exist that science has missed – or has overlooked – or is currently technologically incapable of recognising or testing?

[jomifl]

Yes naomi, that too :-)

[jomifl]

khandro, the movement of the rods seems to come from subtle and unconcious movements of the rods by the operator because it is the operator that is sensitive. If the rods handles were held strictly vertical then the operator input would be isolated.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Then it seems we are in a no-win situation.

[jomifl]

It isn't a line of investigation that I would bother to pursue. Perhaps dowser with his rods standing over a vessel which is filled with water at some time unknown to him. Time when the rods move and repeat many times. there would be a correlation if it worked, none if it didn't.

[naomi24]

Jim, You decided you were an atheist a week or so ago – no more than that – and if we apply the same criteria to you that you’ve applied to me and others, whilst you may have struggled to reach your ultimate conclusion, it’s absolutely fair to say that you had no difficulty in speculating upon the existence or otherwise of a God. You speculated – and that is exactly what I’m doing. The non-existence of the biblical God is common sense to me – but it wasn’t to you. However, had you demanded the same principles be applied to that question that you demand for science, you would have have had no decision to make. You reproach other people for questioning that which science refutes, but when you do it, suddenly the goal posts are mysteriously expanded and the rules don’t apply. Incidentally, you don’t have to apologise to me for reaching any conclusion – right or wrong.

[Zacs-Master]

Just popped in to ask if there were any conclusions yet?

[naomi24]

I've concluded I'm going to bed in a minute, Zacs. ;o)

[jim360]

Even if that's true (and it's amazing how you seem to know more about me than I do at times), it's a bit of a red herring. For starters, the goalposts aren't really mine to move. Secondly, a number of people who purport to use those same goalposts do think there is a god, or at least can't rule it out.

If at times I apply different standards to myself, it's probably not surprising and I'll try not to. But then, in a strange way, this actually provides further evidence for some of my earlier points. Try as we might, humans are subject to all sorts of flaws. Biases, twisting the evidence, interpreting it to suit existing beliefs. The scheme which goes the furthest to acknowledging, and then trying to tackle, these flaws is the scientific method. Therefore its "conclusions" and observations are, if not always correct, certainly far more reliable than anyone else's.

Conclusion: If you are wanting to question the conclusions of Science, your best bet is to do so in a scientific way.

Good night.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Conclusion: If you are wanting to question the conclusions of Science, your best bet is to do so in a scientific way. //

Then why didn't you?

Goodnight.

[Zacs-Master]

Ok.

[jim360]

I wasn't aware that I didn't. And, even if I didn't, I was also young and still learning what "the methods of science" meant. There's a lovely anecdote to illustrate this, I'll share it some other time. And also describe better what I was actually thinking. I think until then it would be hard to comment on what I did, or didn't, do and think, because to be fair you don't know most of it. My recollection is that the Science was never up for debate, but that I thought that it might just be possible to fit God into it somewhere. Or, perhaps, that I couldn't quite see how to get rid of him, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

Besides, I didn't get that far did I? :P

[naomi24]

Jim, You were also young and still learning ‘the methods of science’? We’re talking about last week not ten years ago! The fact is you failed to apply the same criteria to yourself that you apply to others, so your criticism of those speculating upon that which science rejects is not justified. If science requires evidence, then it requires evidence – and you had none. You can’t have it both ways.

[jim360]

I think you're finding a very useful distraction. What I did, or did not, do when it comes to this is frankly irrelevant. And you don't know me or my life, so you can't say "the fact is" for any of it. As far as I'm concerned I was a "nearly atheist" for many years before last week, but it just took a final nudge to take the final step.

Science and its methods are far more than just me telling you what they are. And even if I got them wrong elsewhere, that doesn't mean I didn't get them right here.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I think you're finding a very useful distraction. //

Not at all. This is a point of principle - something you don't appear to understand.

[jim360]

I do so love tu quoque.

[naomi24]

Jim, just concede that, despite all your lofty proselytizing, you didn't apply the criteria that you demand of others to yourself.

[jim360]

I already did, at 22.55 yesterday.

[larrythelamb]

I know, Naomi, very odd, and this is coming from from a confirmed sceptic of all such things ! My final comment on my one and only dowsing experience... I held the rods as level as I could, just holding the plastic sleeves. The rods didn't fall forward, as you would expect if they were being tilted. The left rod moved almost 90 degrees clockwise whilst the right rod moved the same amount anti clockwise. As soon as I moved away in all directions the rods returned to point straight in front of me. I tipped the rods to see if I could replicate the movements but I couldn't manage to, unless I pointed them down to the ground. I do not profess to being a " water dowser ", but I do admit to being baffled by the experience.

[naomi24]

Larry, Thanks for sharing that – and strange that it found what you were looking for – even though it wasn’t water! I think I would have done the same as you – moving around to see what happened. Most odd.

[jomifl]

But did youfind anything Larry?