However, one must not jump to the conclusion that all science therefore must be wrong. We did manage to land on the Moon because of scientific advances.
Like anything a balance of reason and common sense should guide one's judgement.
Yes. William James even writes about the common lack of objectivity in his seminal 1890 book "Principles of Psychology". It has been a common problem with the Science since its inception. And I think it has become even more problematic with the infiltration of political agendas within American University management - Universities more and more are being run like businesses and corporate think tanks - rather than free thinking, objective establishments of academic inquiry.
That's how science works - the evidence accumulates, uncertainty is reduced, probability or likelihood increases, and an hypothesis becomes validated (and consensus in the scientific community builds around it)..
"Extraordinary evidence" is not the individual elements of evidence, but the cumulative amount and quality of the evidence. I sense you're no scientist or student of science, yes?
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
If you have a big investment in Idea X then you are likely to defend Idea X. If you control the money then you may be successful in this. I thought BF Skiinner's ideas were silly but for decades if you didn't pledge your support you didn't get a job in that field.
"Academic politics are the most viscious and bitter form of politics because the stakes are so low." -- Wallace Sayre
Besides, I was commenting on a journalistic standard. When ones make an outlandish claim, one needs to meet a very high burden of proof: lots of good quality reliable supporting evidence from credible sources.
There is no such thing as "extraordinary evidence" in science. There is just the accumulation of evidence to help prove a hypothesis that eventually becomes a theory.
And even scientific theories can and have been disproven over time, despite the accumulation of evidence.
The interpretation and modeling of the evidence is just as important as the accumulation of the evidence.
That's where Skeptics usually fuck it up - they interpret evidence primarily with their philosophical lens of reductive Materialism - which has not been proven by science or philosophical reasoning, to date.
Patrick Powers is right, scientists can be just as unobjective and biased as any group of people. William James was keenly aware of this, as he established the very first school of psychology in the US at Harvard University.
William James - whom idiot Skeptics even during his day, would argue he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.
those tweets from squirrel on the corrupt NY Times rape propaganda were incredible!!! NYT is so discredited.
What ever became of the concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
In science you just need evidence. There is no such thing as "extraordinary" evidence. All you really need is plain simple evidence.
As a scientist I can tell you that scientists can be very unobjective.
Depends on who is supplying the money as well! Don't want to upset them, do they?
Moreso than ever. Sadly so.
However, one must not jump to the conclusion that all science therefore must be wrong. We did manage to land on the Moon because of scientific advances.
Like anything a balance of reason and common sense should guide one's judgement.
Unless we are talking about Dark Matter ha.
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2022/pub/fermilab-pub-22-104-ppd-scd.pdf
Yes. William James even writes about the common lack of objectivity in his seminal 1890 book "Principles of Psychology". It has been a common problem with the Science since its inception. And I think it has become even more problematic with the infiltration of political agendas within American University management - Universities more and more are being run like businesses and corporate think tanks - rather than free thinking, objective establishments of academic inquiry.
There are evidentiary burdens in science (as in law). They deal with statistical probability.
That's how science works - the evidence accumulates, uncertainty is reduced, probability or likelihood increases, and an hypothesis becomes validated (and consensus in the scientific community builds around it)..
"Extraordinary evidence" is not the individual elements of evidence, but the cumulative amount and quality of the evidence. I sense you're no scientist or student of science, yes?
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
If you have a big investment in Idea X then you are likely to defend Idea X. If you control the money then you may be successful in this. I thought BF Skiinner's ideas were silly but for decades if you didn't pledge your support you didn't get a job in that field.
"Academic politics are the most viscious and bitter form of politics because the stakes are so low." -- Wallace Sayre
I guess you missed the part about replication and validation.
There is a replication crisis in science, including number of scandals in the most reputable institutions.
Refuting someone else's bogus research isn't good for your career.
I guess you missed the part about human bias, and BF Skinner.
Well written.
Besides, I was commenting on a journalistic standard. When ones make an outlandish claim, one needs to meet a very high burden of proof: lots of good quality reliable supporting evidence from credible sources.
There is no such thing as "extraordinary evidence" in science. There is just the accumulation of evidence to help prove a hypothesis that eventually becomes a theory.
And even scientific theories can and have been disproven over time, despite the accumulation of evidence.
The interpretation and modeling of the evidence is just as important as the accumulation of the evidence.
That's where Skeptics usually fuck it up - they interpret evidence primarily with their philosophical lens of reductive Materialism - which has not been proven by science or philosophical reasoning, to date.
Patrick Powers is right, scientists can be just as unobjective and biased as any group of people. William James was keenly aware of this, as he established the very first school of psychology in the US at Harvard University.
William James - whom idiot Skeptics even during his day, would argue he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.