Are You A Quack?

Yazata
gonna break this up to explain things a little more... especially since you're on the right track but mislead by a few things. it's verbose but it also has important links and references you should read. i kept it simpler and the links are geared more to the layman for the sake of ease of communication.
-
for starters: the bible is all about faith. as in the belief in the absence of evidence. so it is like comparing apples to Michelin radials because they have some rounded parts.

for two: it doesn't matter what you believe, only in what can be repeatedly demonstrated and "proven". as in evidence based repeatable experimentation.

for three: it's not about "truth" as that is entirely subjective. your "truth" differs from ISIS/ISIL, which differs from Buddhists, which differs from Lakota, which differs from christians. truth is culturally defined and entirely dependent upon how you choose to define it, yourself or as a culture. this is important to know.

there are, however, facts. and the one thing that the scientific method is great at doing is eliminating the bullsh*t, subjectivity, or other baggage that humans tend to carry around with them to insure that the facts are demonstrated.

but the one method that is exactly the same is the method that insures the lack of bias and subjectivity and removes doubt in the form of repeatability and validation.

the scientific method (read the link) is a specific set of ways to do every task to insure that your work can be repeated, and thus validated. it uses criteria to define it's scientific evidence (read the link). it narrows down the facts to insure that they're not simply perceived or believed, they're actual facts that can't be refuted, can be replicated by anyone, and are designed to build upon the past knowledge while breaking down the unknown's and wall of mystery. This is also one reason the work tends to be published in studies while being fact checked by peer review. that process allows other professionals to seek out mistakes and find the cracks in the facts. it also allows for replication which leads to the most important part of science: second party validation.

common sense is fallible, but is also has no way to actually check itself against reality. this is one of the more powerful things about the scientific method

this is the "superpower" of the scientific method. this can also be demonstrated by reading history. in the past, it was often assumed that because someone said they were important, or because they had been right about one thing, they were instantly correct about all else. argument from authority, essentially. this is why we have alchemy or astrology, healing magnetic bracelets and snake-oil salesmen.

introducing a methodology to remove bias, the "brain failures" we know exist, and subjectivity while being open to other people checking your work has allowed knowledge to spread incredibly fast. all because of a simple method (linked) to remove the known bias.

you're mixing a lot of info in this misrepresentation of the scientific method. (again, see link above)

for starters: it's not about just replicating observations. it about measurement. precision. removal of bias (a biggie). designing a test that also removes bias to insure that you're not simply attempting to validate your beliefs. (this is common in creationist attempts at "science"... read any creation paper and you see that they go into the "experiment" seeking a specific answer while ignoring refuting evidence)

it's also about never ignoring refuting evidence. this is very important. A great example of this is Zwicky and his 1929 "tired light" hypothesis. (read the link)

more to the point: science never, ever uses consensus. there is no governing body (like in religion) that says: this is what we will put out as factual and f*ck the evidence
that is strictly a religion or pseudoscience thing. it is painfully evident in everything from creationist pseudoscience to the electric universe and other quack attempts to "explain the world" or "redefine physics", etc.

and don't ever get confused when "consensus" is used WRT science. take, for instance, climate science. you will often hear folk say "consensus shows that [insert claim] is factual". this isn't a matter of a vote or some conspiratorial governing body... it's a matter of the overwhelming evidence being repeatedly found that all points in the same direction.

think of it like this: consensus says that what goes up must come down WRT gravity unless, of course, you leave the influence of Earth's pull (as in get far enough away or at a high enough speed to leave the influence of the gravity well). that isn't a matter of "consensus" meaning a vote, but "Consensus" meaning the repeated evidence and experimentation. you don't have to repeat the experiments yet again to insure that they're true. simply throw and apple and compare that to launching a Moon lander.

1- there is some information that can be gleaned from "eyewitness testimony" if you're a trained investigator and know how to remove the crap from the facts.

2- the rest is patently false. it is not in any way the best evidence we have. did you not read the links i left in the thread regarding some of the brain failures which can affect your perception of the world around you... AKA "eyewitness testimony"?

you should read them. or go here for a breakdown on some of the problems of human cognitive failure and issues with belief: the psychology of belief
it's a well researched set of video's that will help you understand what we actually know about our own mental issues (as a race: humans)

but eyewitness testimony isn't just dismissed out of hand... it is dismissed when it's the ONLY evidence, or when the following evidence isn't reputable or even able to be validated.

in that case, it IS worthless. and i can't stress that enough. again, read my link above about levels of evidence (scientific evidence)

again, read my link above about levels of evidence (scientific evidence)

you will understand the argument better when you understand the method and hierarchy of evidence. Another link you may want to consider is the rules of evidence for legal or court proceedings. (read link)

1- i am not telling anyone what to believe. i am stating that belief isn't the same as evidence. just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true. see any schizophrenic for evidence of that one.

2- there is no argument from authority. i always argue from evidence. science is all about argument from evidence. it is also about the specific hierarchy of evidence (again, read those links) establishing and differentiating facts from subjective and perceived beliefs.

3- it doesn't matter if you were there when something was seen. there are ways to finding facts without being present. we built an entire section of science around this to use in courts called forensic science. (read link). just like we know the electric sun or iron sun pseudoscience is crap and plasma discharges did not carve the grand canyon and make all the moon craters ... we obviously didn't have people, let alone scientists, there when it happened, but we do have ways of figuring out what did happen.

don't let your internal need for answers trump reality. watch the youtube link on the psychology of belief. it's well researched and well made. it's also telling and directly relevant to the topic and validates the other psyche links i've left WRT the topic.

again, you are confusing a belief with what can be proven or shown to be factual.

i am not telling anyone how to believe.
i am telling you that belief doesn't mean it's fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did they exclude all other possibilities?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What other possibilities?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You tell me. What other possibilities did you consider before coming to a conclusion?

 

I didn't. A meteor looks like a meteor. No reason to tick off various other explanations.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Amazing how this thread about cranks, quacks, and those sufferring from delusions of grandeur, has seen you rehash many aspects of the paranormal, supernatural, spooky, and mythical in what seems like defiance that someone dare post an article exposing the same cranks, quacks, and delusional characters that inevitably inhabit any science forum.
The bottom line of course being that science isn't done on any science forum, nor is any fanatical incessant claims re the supernatural, spooky and/or paranormal given any more credibility then that which it lacks anyway.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is true is not always what can be repeatedly demonstrated. Historical facts are likely "true".

As odious as I find Yazata's continued apologies for poor reasoning and even bigotry, I have to agree with them that there is no one scientific method.

Note the plural.

 

sorry to disagree but, typically history is written by the victors... until very, very recently

and again, i disagree

you're talking about the procedures of the science itself, perhaps. as noted, a biologist doesn't use the same instrumentation as a physicist, etc... however, the basics really are the same: as in what is described in this link - the scientific method

please don't let my inability to communicate mislead you... the link is far more specific, clear and concise. my paraphrasing is perhaps not as clear considering i'm not an english major... so...

sigh

let me quote the actual link, since it seems certain folk don't want to actually read it for themselves:

feel free to use the link (above in this reply - yet again) and read the specific references for yourself...

or i can link them here for those who can't figure out how to use a link
[satirical hyperbole intended]

 

Post 121 Bloody well said, in its entirety!
What we have here on this forum, is a couple who believe that anyone can say whatever he believes and put that as fact. While that in itself maybe true, the same couple should realise that those same beliefs put by those same cranks and quacks, need be derided and refuted for what nonsense in general it is, and alternatively, the accepted, evidenced based scientific model shown for why it is just that.
We have two cranks in particular, that love expressing their own version of cosmology, while denying what the evidenced based model and observations tell us: Both those cranks inevitably always fail to answer requests for citations and/or evidence supporting these "personal beliefs" that they uphold, and interestingly both also always refuse to divulge their own credentials and expertise in the field.
Thankfully, most of their claims end up where they should be in the fringes, but on occasion their nonsense infects other legitimate scientific threads. eg: A recent debacle re the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar discovery and the first indirect evidence of gravitational radiation, was incessantly argued as possibly being due to magnetic field interactions, despite links to many many professional papers that discussed all aspects and contingencies re orbital degradation in such systems.
Such reputable links that I often use, being basically a lay person, are inevitable written off by these said cranks and quacks as "pop science", a popular cop out used by these people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are other examples also where the same fabricated nonsense to supposedly invalidate and falsify existing accepted models also litter other scientific discussions. And as usual, the requests for citations etc and credentials are ignored.
The sorry part of all of this is that the couple who profess to be adherents of science and the scientific methodology, see these same two cranks/quacks [well one left now] as "underdogs" despite their obvious pseudoscience claims and seem to believe that their claims as well as other pseudoscientific claims should go unchallenged and that they should be treated with kid gloves.

That isn't going to happen.

 

Well, when you put it like that - which is to say, totally, utterly, stupidly and insultingly wrong - then yeah, you're right, that doesn't exist. But since what you describe nothing to do with the scientific method, it kinda explains the logic behind the wrong stated belief that the scientific method doesn't exist. So my recommendation would be - if I didn't already know that you know what you said isn't correct, so you don't actually believe that - would be to learn what the scientific method actually is. But I've been here long enough to know that isn't what this is about. So anyway, good luck with your trolling - I'm rooting for you.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/28/scientific-method-myth/#.V-2m-igrLIU

"It’s probably best to get the bad news out of the way first. The so-called scientific method is a myth. That is not to say that scientists don’t do things that can be described and are unique to their fields of study. But to squeeze a diverse set of practices that span cultural anthropology, paleobotany, and theoretical physics into a handful of steps is an inevitable distortion and, to be blunt, displays a serious poverty of imagination. Easy to grasp, pocket-guide versions of the scientific method usually reduce to critical thinking, checking facts, or letting “nature speak for itself,” none of which is really all that uniquely scientific. If typical formulations were accurate, the only location true science would be taking place in would be grade-school classrooms."

 

You are making a historical claim. Can you repeat that history? If you can't repeat the history that you are using to make your claim, is your claim then false?

Sorry, but wikipedia is not enough of a citation for this. There are many volumes on scientific methodology out there.

Repeating wikipedia doesn't make it any better of a source on this matter. Nothing in the article seriously contradicts Yazata's claim that there are a variety of scientific methods.

I disagree that the sciences rely on "common sense", but trying to reduce all of science to one method may very well seem like this.

 

If we don't use what many believe to be scientific method what should we use?
Critics are critical that's their thing but I have yet to find one who offers an alternative.
Sure GR is wrong so what do you have to replace it...oh its just wrong because you think so...no I don't think you have made any contribution other than hot air.
Alex

 

Does Mathematics use the scientific method...

 

The word "myth" is a label that has no real meaning without explanation: everything that Yazata said in that explanation was what was "totally, utterly, stupidly and insultingly wrong". However, if one wants to say (as the article does) that the scientific method is a myth because real science is more complicated than that, that's totally fine. Like Yazata, you've participated enough here to know what the scientific method is actually about as well.

 

No, math isn't science it's math.

 

And that's exactly what this about: they aren't trying to clarify how science works, they are trying to bash it in order to raise-up their crackpot philosophies. And while perhaps they don't say their philosophies explicitly, if you've only seen a couple of MR's posts, it is easy enough to describe in two words (the last two words):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Except when it's ghosts, bigfoot, or something to do with vaccines. It's like MR sets out to tick every box.

 

Is Mathematics the language of the universe?

More serious question, the first was more rhetorical.

 

That's a somewhat reasonable, if egotistical way of describing it, yes...

I figured it probably was, but I think you got the opposite of the rhetorical answer you were expecting, didn't you?