X-Message-Number: 5838
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:33:22 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Junk Science
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 Mac Tonnies <>in #5926 Wrote:
>To apply the "proportional evidence" argument toward
>unpopular research in general is nothing short of moronic.
First of all I don't know why you call it "unpopular". Spoon
bending, flying saucers and ghosts are far more popular with
the general public than particle physics research. Second, why
is the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence "moronic"? Completely revising your world view and
throwing out theories that have worked well for years may need
to be done from time to time, but it's not something that should
be undertaken lightly. You had better be very, very certain that
it's necessary and not just the result of something much
simpler, like a silly mistake or fraud. If you start making
major revisions in the basic theories about how the world works
for trivial reason, very soon you will find that you've made
negative progress and your world view will become very confused.
There is nothing very esoteric in all this, we use this
principle in daily life. If I tell you I just saw a green car
drive down the street you'll probably believe me, if I tell you
I just saw a green giraffe walk down the street with the Pope
on it's back singing "Louie Louie" you will probably demand
better evidence than just my word before you believe me.
>First, you use the assertion that neuroscientists "haven't
>found anything" as proof against psi phenomena. Now you
>maintain that neuroscientists don't partake in serious psi
>research
Is that suppose to be inconsistent? There is nothing wrong with
having wild ideas, it's part of the scientific method and
sometimes they even turn out to be true, but that's not the
only part of Science. You have an idea, you try something, it
doesn't work, you don't keep trying the same thing over and
over, you move on and try something different.
>>>He [Carl Sagan] is committed to selling
>>>science to the public.
>>And a very noble commitment it is, I hope he becomes
>>very rich.
>So do I...but if the price to pay is official denial, then I
>want out. [...] I find this position incompatible with good
>science.
If Carl Sagan was only interested in money and cared nothing
about the truth he would do far better if he moved to the junk
science camp, they sell FAR more books. Think about it, a
respected scientist endorsing spoon bending, Martians who like
to make statues and little green men who like to blow themselves up
over Siberia, he could sell more books than Steven King.
>you indicate a ferocious mistrust of human observation and
>honesty.
Absolutely true, I do. Let's use your example of the Tunguska
event. Suddenly, without the slightest warning, an object much
brighter than the sun appears in the sky. It is far too bright
to look at directly and lasts only for 20 seconds. 20 years
after this terrifying experience I ask you what direction it was
moving. Are you really surprised the reports were conflicting,
it would be ASTOUNDING if they were not.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBMTKTNX03wfSpid95AQG3ywTvZ+Rcbl/Iyi/47qg7CGTLW8tyuPq59tAl
mM6Yl4hFzPdcDqQkqgr45PF0WknCvUoN0l8Av4C5Ol/uGErVm9sbeBEFhO5ptP6l
5c1BRPPQ6chcrN0huoLtbBHzphDM0K16Y5TDix3m8oTvO/N8fQ1pf9hnaKWICQ+W
LSJOme1tRZ6HLhvc8IjCIwRqONjf1F7UVlE0ObrcQi5xkmjNPXQ=
=lPa3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5838