Hypocrisy in Science

[Chris Haynes]

I will believe that Sasquatch exists when there is in display of its actual hair, photo and other evidence in the Burke Museum:
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/

Until then I believe that this thread is mistitled.

In the meantime... anyone is welcome to come up and trek through the Cascades looking for a myth. Our local economy will welcome all visiters. All you have to do is to wait for the snow to be cleared out of all the passes (especially on Highway 410, there are truly lovely spots up there to mount an expedition).

You may wish to familiarize yourself with this "documention" of a Sasquatch encounter:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-2190995-6247112?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[aggle_rithm]

Testing falsehood of the statement "Man can levitate"...

Let's say "man" refers to any single man, woman, or child alive today, and define levitation as the ability to paranormally defy gravity at will.

Problem: You have to test over six billion people. By the time you're done with the first few, several people have died somewhere in the world. It is now impossible to prove that these people could not levitate when they were alive.

D'oh!

How about if we try it on everyone who is alive at the time they are scheduled to take the test? As the population grows, so does the backlog. So that won't work.

How about we test the falsehood of this statement: Every man, woman and child on Earth can levitate. All we have to do is pick a person at random and test the hypothesis.

One problem: How do you prove that any particular person cannot levitate? Some of the possibilities:

He says he can levitate, but refuses to do it.
He says he can't levitate, but is lying.
He has the innate ability to levitate, but doesn't know how.

In short, proving a negative can be an awful lot of trouble. Its a lot simpler just to limit our inquiries to things we have evidence for.

 

[Tez]

Testing falsehood of the statement "Man can levitate"...

Let's say "man" refers to any single man, woman, or child alive today, and define levitation as the ability to paranormally defy gravity at will.

Problem: You have to test over six billion people. By the time you're done with the first few, several people have died somewhere in the world. It is now impossible to prove that these people could not levitate when they were alive.

D'oh!

How about if we try it on everyone who is alive at the time they are scheduled to take the test? As the population grows, so does the backlog. So that won't work.

How about we test the falsehood of this statement: Every man, woman and child on Earth can levitate. All we have to do is pick a person at random and test the hypothesis.

One problem: How do you prove that any particular person cannot levitate? Some of the possibilities:

He says he can levitate, but refuses to do it.
He says he can't levitate, but is lying.
He has the innate ability to levitate, but doesn't know how.

In short, proving a negative can be an awful lot of trouble. Its a lot simpler just to limit our inquiries to things we have evidence for.

Hey Aggle

Welcome to the forum!

My feeling is that thinking about things along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" do not really help skeptics much. Almost every issue can be rephrased in such a way that "proving" it is proving a negative.

What we really mean when we confront these things is that "you cant prove statements over infinite domains". Thus, although I can't prove unicorns dont exist, I can prove that they dont exist under my desk right now.

Ultimately of course its better to avoid the term "prove" completely, unless the axioms are very well laid out and generally agreed upon, and rather stick to "show reasonable evidence for"...

 

[aggle_rithm]

My feeling is that thinking about things along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" do not really help skeptics much. Almost every issue can be rephrased in such a way that "proving" it is proving a negative.

Yeah, I can see how this can degenerate into boolean algebra, and nobody wants that.

I guess the key is to ask the question: Which is the more extraordinary claim: That something does exist, contrary to everything we know, or that something doesn't exist, contrary to everything we know?

 

[aggle_rithm]

Ultimately of course its better to avoid the term "prove" completely, unless the axioms are very well laid out and generally agreed upon, and rather stick to "show reasonable evidence for"...

I deny negative confirmation of the lack of evidence of the null hypothesis.

Prove otherwise, so-called "Skeptics"!

 

[Dragonrock]

I deny negative confirmation of the lack of evidence of the null hypothesis.

Prove otherwise, so-called "Skeptics"!

Ow, I think I sprained a neuron on that one.

ps. Welcome to the forum!

 

[dsm]

I deny negative confirmation of the lack of evidence of the null hypothesis.

So you accept the positive confirmation of the real evidence of a well-stated hypothesis?

Isn't that what the skeptics have said all along...?

 

[aggle_rithm]

So you accept the positive confirmation of the real evidence of a well-stated hypothesis?

Isn't that what the skeptics have said all along...?

Let's put it this way: I don't fail not to accept it, unless circumstances that are not beyond my control do not intervene.

That being said, I will proceed to not dwell on the subject any further. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[aggle_rithm]

Sasquatch

According to an episode of the Six Million Dollar Man, Bigfoot is a big, furry robot. That's why we can't find any droppings! Or a body.

Seriously, I recently saw a documentary where they claimed to have tracked down the man who wore the ape costume in the famous Patterson Bigfoot film. He refused to talk about Bigfoot, but as he sulked away, it was pretty obvious from his slow, lumbering gait that he was the guy in the film. This film has long served as the benchmark of Bigfoot evidence.

My point is: If the basis of a belief is on shaky ground, then everything built on that basis is suspect. All other considerations are irrelevent. You're better off letting that belief go in favor of more worthwhile pursuits.

 

[cbish]

mythmusage,

I might be your guy if you want to go Bigfoot hunting. My brother works for the leading Bigfoot hunting firm; Beam, Daniels, and Weiser. He's out in the field right now.

 

[Zep]

Depends on your point of view...

Re "levitation", let's look at the definition again: levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. OK, some of the previous posters took exception to my Mir space station example for various reasons, irrelevant or otherwise, but it did seem that they took it there was an IMPLIED extra limitation (ie. not clearly stated) that it only applies on Earth under normal gravity. *sigh*

So let's make the new definition as: levitate: While being on the Earth's surface and subject to normal Earth gravity, to rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. (That should at least rule out all other planets...!)

OK, have a look at this link to see some everyday people meeting this new, more restricted crtieria: www.genting.com.my/en/themepark/indoor/skyventure.htm

Zep

PS. That looks like Fun!
PPS. I highly recommend that folks take up Hydrogen Cyanide's call to action - to go to the Oregon/Washington/BC forests in a systematic scientific search for anything like a sasquatch. Who knows! YOU could be the one!!!

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Depends on your point of view...

So let's make the new definition as: levitate: While being on the Earth's surface and subject to normal Earth gravity, to rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity.

By this definition you would not be levitating if you did it sitting on a floor.