Pseudoskepticism and evidence for precognition

Of course... that's why there are measures to address concerns for bias and conflict of interest in pretty much everything.
 
Varda said:
Of course... that's why there are measures to address concerns for bias and conflict of interest in pretty much everything.
Click to expand...

But is anyone skeptical about those measures for addressing concerns for bias and conflict of interest?
 
Magical Realist said:
Is it scientific to be skeptical of a phenomena just because you don't believe it to be possible? OR..is it more scientific to accept the possibility of a phenomena when real evidence for it is obtained?
Click to expand...

The modern reductionist dogma dictates us to believe that we presume too much to be real, and that in reality, there are fewer things than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

Secondly, modern science is generally aimed toward debunking stuff that has been believed for a long time, not toward finding new truths.
 
Signal said:
Secondly, modern science is generally aimed toward debunking stuff that has been believed for a long time, not toward finding new truths.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Science finds out new truths that incidentally debunk stuff that has been believed for a long time.
There's a difference.
 
Signal said:
Really? Tell that to those who fund scientific research. :D
Click to expand...
You think?
Someone gives a budget and says "show X is wrong"?
Or do they hand out money to investigate aspects of the universe that possibly have a pre-existing explanation?

I can't think of any scientist I've met who was under the impression his job was debunking old "knowledge", rather they thought they were extending the boundaries and "investigating the unknown".
 
Dywyddyr said:
You think?
Someone gives a budget and says "show X is wrong"?
Or do they hand out money to investigate aspects of the universe that possibly have a pre-existing explanation?

I can't think of any scientist I've met who was under the impression his job was debunking old "knowledge", rather they thought they were extending the boundaries and "investigating the unknown".
Click to expand...

Show that tobacco does not cause addiction.
Show that GMOs do not cause health hazards.
 
Varda said:
Show that tobacco does not cause addiction.
Show that GMOs do not cause health hazards.
Click to expand...
Are they the questions asked?
Or is it "Is tobacco addictive?" and "Are GMOs hazardous to health?"
The way you phrased the questions pre-supposes the answer...
 
It doesn't matter what the answer is, that is not what I am paying you for. I want you to show that my product doesn't pose risk to the population and you better show it or you're in the gutter.
 
Varda said:
It doesn't matter what the answer is, that is not what I am paying you for. I want you to show that my product doesn't pose risk to the population and you better show it or you're in the gutter.
Click to expand...
Then that's not science, is it?
It's a "political/ business" decision on what results be presented, not what the results actually are.
And how many cases have there been when someone has done that - presented skewed "conclusions" by suppressing the genuine results - only to have the actual ones exposed later?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top