Are Personal Experiences Valid Evidence?

[zoobyshoe]

"Alas"? Means "Wake up and smell
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
"Alas"? Means "Wake up and smell
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.

Sorry, I just did.

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I went to school for answers. I wanted to know the GUT or TOE; I wanted to understand everything. Alas, this is not what science offers. Science seeks to develope mathematical models that predict the correct results.

What on Earth made you think you could learn the TOE when one doesn't exist right now and likely will not for a long time? I'm just wondering that's all.

There could exist things which can't be exlained by science. There might also not be any. Demanding answers right this instant, is a bad idea. Science proceeds trying to find answers to everything, but only the collective body of science has a chance at explaining everything we see. Not just one person. Not now at least. One of the assumptions science makes is that most everything can be explained. First you try to explain it, keep trying until you have an answer or the problem is proven to have no solution.

The way I see it there are real mysteries out there, effects that have actually been seen but not explained that need answers. We don't need to make up new ones and try to find if there is really something to explain.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking


Sorry, I just did.

My point, exactly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
What on Earth made you think you could learn the TOE when one doesn't exist right now and likely will not for a long time? I'm just wondering that's all.

As a much younger man I believed that we were close. I expected to work through physics and to be a part of this era - of unifying QM with GR. I still think that we may be close, but my confidence is much lower now. I think we may be a long way from a truly unified theory of everything; if it can exist.

There could exist things which can't be exlained by science. There might also not be any. Demanding answers right this instant, is a bad idea. Science proceeds trying to find answers to everything, but only the collective body of science has a chance at explaining everything we see. Not just one person. Not now at least. One of the assumptions science makes is that most everything can be explained. First you try to explain it, keep trying until you have an answer or the problem is proven to have no solution.

The way I see it there are real mysteries out there, effects that have actually been seen but not explained that need answers. We don't need to make up new ones and try to find if there is really something to explain. [/B]

I completely understand the objections to mystics and pseudo science. Science led us out of the dark ages. Newton showed us a set of laws that make sense and that govern the physical world. We have since learned that reality is much more complex than Newton ever imagined. I wouldn't expect the average scientist to waste a moment of time on the immense reservoir or cr"pola that sells and sells and sells. My only contention is this: QM has shown us that our minds are not very good at recognizing how things work. We are not good at anticipating physical laws and truths; we must discover them through experiment and the rigor of mathematics. I have chosen to root through the cr"p for the occasional gem of truth. I find this interesting, entertaining a times to the point of being downright hilarious, and on rare occasion, revealing. I have found many obscure scientific truths in digging through this stuff. Mainstream scientists have often been quite surprised by what I have discovered [run across in the lit]. I try to allow that even the wildest claim might make sense if viewed in the proper context. But, not for a moment do I think that science should assume any position on claims of personal experience unless and until physical, testable evidence is presented to support that particular claim. Until that time may come, I say no comment...of course this is only my opinion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
When we condemn [not just ignore] the claims and experiences of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, we teach them that science is impotent, and arrogant.

Agreed.

 

[FZ+]

But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

I said not just ignore, but condemn. There is a big difference between saying that no scientific evidence exist to support a claim, and claiming that something is false based solely on a lack of evidence. Nowhere in logic does a lack of evidence qualify as evidence. I know for a fact that I have experienced many things that I can never prove. For how many of your life's experiences could you offer scientific proof?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

And yet it's all about the "mechanical truth," not the "animated truth" (life itself) which lies beyond the mechanics.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I said not just ignore, but condemn. There is a big difference between saying that no scientific evidence exist to support a claim, and claiming that something is false based solely on a lack of evidence. Nowhere in logic does a lack of evidence qualify as evidence. I know for a fact that I have experienced many things that I can never prove. For how many of your life's experiences could you offer scientific proof?

True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.

Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.

If science has nothing objective to say because no evidence exists to support a claim, then until evidence is presented, the science doesn't matter.

Consider the claims of ghosts. Many explanations for ghosts might be imagined. Many claims of personal experience may be explainable through physiology or psychology. But science cannot prove that ghosts do not exist. If someone or group of people claim to have had a first hand encounter with spirits, unless direct evidence exists to the contrary, what can be said of the science except that nothing can be said? This is the science of the thing. Just because other explanations may exist, this does not mean that we can convict our claimants as delusional or dishonest. Of course one might consider all such claim as bogus but this is a personal opinion. Without any direct evidence relating to a particular claim, science can't have much to say about spirits or those who meet them.

 

[Iacchus32]

Grubbing in the Dark?

Originally posted by FZ+
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.

Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.

Hey I admit, my body is subject to gravity just like everybody else's. That's what makes it so difficult to explain. And yet caterpillars do turn into butterflies.

Of course in that sense you can say the animated truth "arose" from the mechanical truth. And yet, if the animated truth didn't exist first, there would be nothing to lay the eggs to spawn the mechanical truth. In other words butterflies procreate and caterpillars don't.

So it's really an illusion that we seem to be playing with here -- due to our being earthbound -- much like grubs grubbing in the dark!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

By definition, using logic, we can never prove a negative. This means that we can never prove that psychics don't exist.

Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, although it is often harder. I don't know where this fallacy came from, but it is very prevalent.

For example, I can prove that I didn't buy my bicyle new at Wal-Mar if I prove that I bought it new at the local bike shop.

Likewise, if you can prove the logical inconsistancy of the existence of some object or entity with the qualities it is described to have, you can conclude that that object doesn't exist.
-------------------------------
To get back on topic...

I agree that there needs to be more skepticism, although I don't think that most people in the Western, 1st-world countries believe in psychics. However, people are prone to taking any little thing as evidence of supernatural or whatever else fits into their theories, especially when it comes to their defined religion. Especially when you realize the illusions that "magicians" can pull off, for example, you should use skepticism to evaluate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, although it is often harder. I don't know where this fallacy came from, but it is very prevalent.

For example, I can prove that I didn't buy my bicyle new at Wal-Mar if I prove that I bought it new at the local bike shop.

This is proving a positive. We can then ignore contradictary statements.

Likewise, if you can prove the logical inconsistancy of the existence of some object or entity with the qualities it is described to have, you can conclude that that object doesn't exist.

I would say that you can reasonably conclude; not strictly a logical proof. But I don't really mean to argue this as a fine point.

I agree that there needs to be more skepticism, although I don't think that most people in the Western, 1st-world countries believe in psychics. However, people are prone to taking any little thing as evidence of supernatural or whatever else fits into their theories, especially when it comes to their defined religion.

This can be very true. What is not true is the notion that this speaks to the evidence for many claims.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If science has nothing objective to say because no evidence exists to support a claim, then until evidence is presented, the science doesn't matter.

Grr... you forced me into agreement here.(Damn you! ) You shouldn't give the misleading impression of having truth, yes. But I still feel a duty (tacky as it sounds) to point out when people declare they have the truth when they do not, when people say - there are ghosts!, I think it is right of me to say that you don't have enough evidence to make that claim, or that theory X and experiment Y get in your way.

If it is an observation made, then yes, theory can not attack that. But if it is a claim, or a conclusion, or a theory, put into the public domain, then it is important that all sides are heard, and dubious certainties dispeled in favour of more probable ones - they have chosen to bring what they say into the open air, after all.

They must bear da konsequences of that aktion!

 

[Tail]

[Disclaimer: didn't read all the posts!]

I consist of the world. I also change the world, which in turn changes me.

Thus nothing really changes...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
Grr... you forced me into agreement here.(Damn you! ) You shouldn't give the misleading impression of having truth, yes. But I still feel a duty (tacky as it sounds) to point out when people declare they have the truth when they do not, when people say - there are ghosts!, I think it is right of me to say that you don't have enough evidence to make that claim, or that theory X and experiment Y get in your way.

If it is an observation made, then yes, theory can not attack that. But if it is a claim, or a conclusion, or a theory, put into the public domain, then it is important that all sides are heard, and dubious certainties dispeled in favour of more probable ones - they have chosen to bring what they say into the open air, after all.

They must bear da konsequences of that aktion!

Really I'd bet that we agree much more than not.

Not for a moment do I mean to defend the nuts and con artists.

Personal experiences do not count as scientific evidence.

I feel that personal experiences do count as weighted "legal" evidence so to speak; just as we might mean in a court of law - called witnesses. By weighted I mean that we may assign some degree of credibility as a ratio - such as 1:10⁹, or 1:2 for example.