82-year-old who claims he has not had any food or water

[IcedEcliptic]

We know that. But simply put, (bona fide) empirical evidence trumps our preconceptions about what's impossible. Relying on things we already "know" simply doesn't cut it in the face of an experiment in-progress.

Again, I'd still put my money on fraud, but there is no closing this case until and unless the results of the experiment are scrutinized.

The results are already tainted, so... we're back to square 1. In this, best of all possible worlds, we cannot always be logical positivists. There is strong evidence that this would require breaking major accepted physical laws, so we must accept that this is mystical, or not. If this is a test of mystical fortitude, but only has the TRAPPINGS of science, we do not have to take it seriously.

Show me the imaging of his miraculous anatomy, for the first step, then no water for bathing. We do not apply scientific method of proof to a carnival trick that is couched in organized fraud and absurdities.

 

[DaveC426913]

The results are already tainted, so...

You do not know that, though it's a good bet.

Show me the imaging of his miraculous anatomy...

No. Lack of evidence of a miraculous anatomy does not invalidate the results of an experiment.

 

[pallidin]

Again, I'd still put my money on fraud, but there is no closing this case until and unless the results of the experiment are scrutinized.

I'll close the case right now.

There is ZERO scientific evidence or even ANY precedence for this event.

It is a hoax. Plain and simple.

 

[devassocx]

I read the article...very humorous that anyone would take it seriously.

Back in the days of black&white tv there was some show here in So. CA. where one of
the guests was the leader of a sect called 'Breathetarians' (sp?). The claim was that
they also didn't need to eat. There was enough energy in the air to sustain one's body.

Then one of the followers ratted the leader out by claiming he saw him down a dish
of ice cream. The leader strongly denied this of course.

I guess the world is full of these kinds of folks.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

You do not know that, though it's a good bet.

He had access to water game over.

No. Lack of evidence of a miraculous anatomy does not invalidate the results of an experiment.[/QUOTE]

It does if you accept thermodynamics and don't believe in magic.

 

[stevenb]

No. Lack of evidence of a miraculous anatomy does not invalidate the results of an experiment.

Yes it does, especially when taken in context of the full story.

Science is not just about identifying new phenomena. It's also about identifying cause and effect and understanding the mechanisms by which unusual effects occur. Ordinary anatomy is not scientifically consistent with the claim.

Now, if you want to take the point of view that this is an example of real magic, or divine intervention, that's fine, but then don't call it science and talk about scientific methods and protocols etc. There is no basis to assume that science is the right tool for that job.

Most of us understand this case for what it is, and it is much more than a "good bet" that this is a case of fraud.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I just saw this video of James Randi talking about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u6eJB9GLY

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I just saw this video of James Randi talking about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u6eJB9GLY

James Randi is god, and his test is so crushing for fantastic junk. Thanks for the video.

 

[stevenb]

James Randi is god.

Hey, if you can prove that. This god will give you a million dollars.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Hey, if you can prove that. This god will give you a million dollars.

True, he is a generous divinity

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is ... also about identifying cause and effect and understanding the mechanisms by which unusual effects occur.

Absolutely. And identifying cause and effect mechanisms would come immediately after identifying if there's something interesting to investigate.

Look, I'm not suggesting this isn't a fraud, I'm simply suggesting that y'all are behaving religiously in your convictions. You're not being dispassionate. The whole point of being a rational science-minded person is to allow a case to be made despite your personal beliefs, instead of shutting it down because you disagree with it. Otherwise we stifle discoveries.

I think you guys are more interested in being right than you are in being rational.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Absolutely. And identifying cause and effect mechanisms would come immediately after identifying if there's something interesting to investigate.

Look, I'm not suggesting this isn't a fraud, I'm simply suggesting that y'all are behaving religiously in your convictions. You're not being dispassionate. The whole point of being a rational science-minded person is to allow a case to be made despite your personal beliefs, instead of shutting it down because you disagree with it. Otherwise we stifle discoveries.

I think you guys are more interested in being right than you are in being rational.

There is dispassionate, but there is also appropriate standard for a given situation. Who would not like to discover a medical miracle? It is not wanting, it is that a man without water and food violates many rigorously verified laws of physics. This extraordinary claim requires more evidence and rigor than is present in this "study".

 

[stevenb]

I think you guys are more interested in being right than you are in being rational.

Nope. We are right because we ARE being rational. Scientific questions must meet a minimal level of worthiness before they should even be considered. This claim is just nonsense from the starting line. This has been demonstrated with a tremendous amount of rational analysis right in this thread and much more than that in our minds (which you don't give us credit for), yet you just ignore it all and just say "keep an open mind". How long do you intend on keeping your mind open on this irrational claim? How much money and time is nonsense worthy of?

 

[pallidin]

Good post stevenb.
I agree with you 100%

Quite frankly, I'm very surprised that this threaded wasn't closed a long time ago.
The issue is so far below scientific rationality that it belongs in the category of "absurd"

 

[Gokul43201]

I too believe this "holy man" has demonstrated nothing yet, but agree with much of the sentiment conveyed by Dave.

It is not wanting, it is that a man without water and food violates many rigorously verified laws of physics.

I have yet to see a rigorous proof for such violation of "verified laws of physics" in this thread. Would you care to supply one?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I too believe this "holy man" has demonstrated nothing yet, but agree with much of the sentiment conveyed by Dave.I have yet to see a rigorous proof for such violation of "verified laws of physics" in this thread. Would you care to supply one?

In this thread the entropic nature if metabolism has been discussed. How does life exist without reducing energy to a less organized state? We eat, we emit heat, and defecate and urinate. I don't feel the need for proof to counter a fraud who had access to water within at least 6 days.

 

[Jake4]

I would say however, that because science is 99% discovery, the slight possibility that it is legitimate is still there.

It may not obey the set rules we have as of now, but you can't ever decisively say that it is 100% a fraud.

We've seen many times in eastern medicine and the like, things that cannot be explained. This IS science, so don't throw it out, simply because it doesn't work with what we currently know.

Almost every discovery started with extreme skepticism (ehem, darwin? quantum?)

I'm not saying this is legitimate, but I'm simply saying that there is always a non-zero possibility that it is : )

 

[stevenb]

I too believe this "holy man" has demonstrated nothing yet, but agree with much of the sentiment conveyed by Dave.I have yet to see a rigorous proof for such violation of "verified laws of physics" in this thread. Would you care to supply one?

Science does not rely on rigorous proofs in the mathematical sense. Instead, proofs are more akin to the kind used in a courtroom. If you want to entertain the possibility of this claim being valid, then you open the door to any crackpot idea. Hey, maybe I should go outside and see if men from Mars are on my roof right now. I have no rigorous proof that they are not there unless I go out and look, and what a great discovery that would be, if they happen to be there. Hey further yet, I claim the I went outside and found that they really are there. Hey, you should believe the possibility and take a plane and come verify for yourself. Come on, I invite you to come see. If you come, I'll let you be a coauthor on a paper. We'll both be famous.

It might save time to instead ask, "What laws of physics are not violated?". Really now, some violations have been mentioned in this thread already. Conservation of mass and conservation of energy are clearly violated. Water evaporates in sweat and breathing, yet he will not lose weight after 70 years. He stopped eating as an adolecent, yet he continued to grow. He clearly ages and changes physically with no energy input. Also, he moves without an energy source.

OK, now go ahead and say that the real law of physics is conservation of mass/energy. Maybe he has mass/energy conversion organs in his chest. No wait, Dave said that his organs can be normal and still the claim can be valid. That can't be it. OK, he absorbes external energy sources like sunlight and with normal organs is able to convert energy to water. Yep, OK you're right, no violations of physics at all. OK, the claim is true. I give up.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't feel the need for proof to counter a fraud who had access to water within at least 6 days.

Then your claim ought to be a violation of rigorous experimental protocol rather than a violation of the laws of physics.

 

[Gokul43201]

Science does not rely on rigorous proofs in the mathematical sense.

If there's no intention of providing a proof there ought to be no assertions of violating rigorously verified physical laws.

Why not just stop at saying this person has made an extra-ordinary claim and the so-called demonstration was lacking in sufficient experimental rigor to verify the claim? (And therefore this is not worth speculating about.)

 

[Gokul43201]

Yep, OK you're right, no violations of physics at all. OK, the claim is true. I give up.

What's the name for this kind of logical fallacy?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

If there's no intention of providing a proof there ought to be no assertions of violating rigorously verified physical laws.

Why not just stop at saying this person has made an extra-ordinary claim and the so-called demonstration was lacking in sufficient experimental rigor to verify the claim? (And therefore this is not worth speculating about.)

This is page 13, I have long since done as you described.

 

[stevenb]

What's the name for this kind of logical fallacy?

frustration

 

[stevenb]

Why not just stop at saying this person has made an extra-ordinary claim and the so-called demonstration was lacking in sufficient experimental rigor to verify the claim? (And therefore this is not worth speculating about.)

That's a statement that I can accept with no problem.

 

[pallidin]

I share in the frustration. To those whom wish to believe the claim:

Please cite ANY evidence that a human can survive without water for more than a week or so(less than 2 weeks).

If you can not, please cite ANY scientific study which shows it is potentially possible.

So, that's a CHALLENGE.

 

[phyzmatix]

Please cite ANY evidence that a human can survive without water for more than a week or so(less than 2 weeks).

If you can not, please cite ANY scientific study which shows it is potentially possible.

So, that's a CHALLENGE.

Can you imagine where we would've been had the evolution of science been underwritten by the practise of discarding all theories or ideas to which no references exist out of hand?

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

 

[stevenb]

Can you imagine where we would've been had the evolution of science been underwritten by the practise of discarding all theories or ideas to which no references exist out of hand?

Can you imagine where we would have been had the evolution of science been underwritten by the practice of accepting ALL crackpot claims?

It is difficult enough to unravel the truths of nature. Why complicate that by doing experiments which mix in the lies of humans?

 

[phyzmatix]

Can you imagine where we would have been had the evolution of science been underwritten by the practice of accepting ALL crackpot claims?

Your response is irrelevant to my statement. I never once suggested that we must accept any crackpot claims, never mind all of them. You, however, want to disregard claims not already referenced as known as unworthy of further inspection.

It is difficult enough to unravel the truths of nature. Why complicate that by doing experiments which mix in the lies of humans?

I would have thought that the business of separating truth from lie falls squarely in the domain of science. Or would you rather we leave the judgement of what constitutes fact and what constitutes fallacy over to the personal interpretation and opinions of the individual?

 

[pallidin]

Your response is irrelevant to my statement. I never once suggested that we must accept any crackpot claims, never mind all of them. You, however, want to disregard claims not already referenced as known as unworthy of further inspection.



I would have thought that the business of separating truth from lie falls squarely in the domain of science. Or would you rather we leave the judgement of what constitutes fact and what constitutes fallacy over to the personal interpretation and opinions of the individual?

What would you give as an example of a "crackpot" claim? Please, do tell.

Secondly, I'm not disregarding claims for lack of references. I was merely asking that someone cite a reference.

Thirdly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, and in the "domain of science" I asked if anyone could cite any scientific study which shows that it(the original claim from India) is biologically possible.

Can't get ANYMORE scientific and rational than that!

 

[stevenb]

Your response is irrelevant to my statement. I never once suggested that we must accept any crackpot claims, never mind all of them. You, however, want to disregard claims not already referenced as known as unworthy of further inspection.

It's not irrelevant at all, and you are suggesting that we accept crackpot claims since you made your comment in a thread about a crackpot claim.

My point is that science is a pragmatic activity and it's not practical to consider every question. There is a spectrum. Some ideas are so crazy as to be unworthy of serious study, while some ideas are clearly worth considering. There is always a gray area, but this claim is not even close to a gray area.

 

[pallidin]

Some ideas are so crazy as to be unworthy of serious study, while some ideas are clearly worth considering. There is always a gray area, but this claim is not even close to a gray area.

Spot on, stevenb.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please define crazy. While I agree with the basic sentiment, most of modern physics sounded pretty crazy as I first began to learn about it. My dad still doesn't believe in Relativity theory - it sounds too crazy! Don't even bother trying to discuss QM with him.

The real question is whether the results can be duplicated in a proper setting, and most importantly, if anyone is willing to pay to do the study. That's where subjective judgements play a role. It is worth doing is someone wants to pay for it!

 

[stevenb]

Please define crazy.

Many things in science do not have precise definitions. For example, biologists can't agree on a good definition for the word life. We all know what life is. We can almost always identify it and we also know when something is not life. Still, there are gray areas like viruses.

So, I don't expect to be able to define crazy to everyone's satisfaction. Still, we can characterize what a crazy claim is in the context of science.

Note that something "crazy" in science may not be crazy in other human frameworks. People talk of miracles in religion and this is outside the domain of science. If one believes that a God can suspend physical laws, then there is no point talking about using science to disprove or prove it. However, this is PF and we are talking about science here.

In the context of science, a crazy claim is NOT something like relativity and QM which is backed by experiments on top of experiments. If your Dad does not accept these ideas it's because he is uneducated about the experimental evidence. Many people reject the idea of natural selection as a viable explanation for evolution. Some even deny that evolution has taken place. etc. etc. These beliefs are not scientific viewpoints. This is not the type of thing we are talking about here.

These above examples are good to talk about because without experimental evidence, they would seem crazy to some people. Indeed, without previous theories failing to agree with experiments, there would have been no need to consider these newer theories. Anyone suggesting these ideas when existing theories perfectly match experiments, would be a little crazy. Note the difference, however. They and their ideas would be crazy, but at least it would be honest and not fraudulent craziness. If a crazy idea was proposed without any experimental or theoretical need, and it turned out to be right, then the inventor would be crazy and lucky. Still he would get the credit for his gamble, which is fair. Anyway these existing examples of "crazy ideas" were never crazy from a scientific viewpoint. They were developed to explain known experimental data and known failings in existing theories.

In science, a crazy claim or idea is one that is proposed in the absence of any need to explain credible experimental data AND in the absence of a failure of existing theory. The idea is particularly crazy when accepting the unneeded idea topples, or requires major revamping of, existing well-established science. In other words, you gain little and lose much in accepting the idea. It is even more crazy when it is based on the word of a human being just making a statement (e.g. i don't need to eat or drink). It is crazy to accept such claims when you have many very ordinary and plausible explanations (consistent with existing well-excepted ideas) that explain your questionable unverified data... I could go on trying to characterize, but one either gets the point, or one doesn't.

Just like I know a running dog is life, and a rock is not life, and a virus is a gray area, even without a clear definition of life; I know that QM is not crazy, and this "holy-man's claim" is crazy, and cold-fusion is a gray area, even without a clear definition of crazy.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Crazy: something from nothing: a man who expends energy without intake of energy to reduce to a less ordered state.

 

[DaveC426913]

This has been demonstrated with a tremendous amount of rational analysis right in this thread and much more than that in our minds (which you don't give us credit for)

Rational analysis? Of what? What facts of this case are you analyzing?

I thought we had advanced past the antiquated idea that all science can be derived from logic alone, divorced from observation of nature.