Cargo Cult Science • Richard P. Feynman

a reply to: greencmp

So, he is making fun of institutionalized "science" who's main feature is the political agenda bound to the concept and expected outcome it seeks to establish rather than defending entrenched presumptions.

If you mean the natives accepted norms were ignorant and he compares that to our "accepted scientific methods" in the same fashion, I accept that . Sorry if I got it wrong.

a reply to: intrptr

I state again:

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[15] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

Sometimes crappy evidence is worse than no evidence because people can leap to faulty conclusions based on bad data. Credulous anecdotes for extraordinary claims fall under this category.

Either we accept your fantastic claims (with all of the untestable and frankly implausible assumptions that come with it) or we can make fewer assumptions and say what you saw was not what you think. Occam's Razor takes care of this.

a reply to: GetHyped

No, not really, especially considering the "ETs" in this instance had a very mundane explanation.

I missed the post that explained the "hole punch" in the clouds… if you would?

a reply to: intrptr

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

a reply to: GetHyped

Sometimes crappy evidence is worse than no evidence because people can leap to faulty conclusions based on bad data. Credulous anecdotes for extraordinary claims fall under this category.

Labeling peoples testimony of events as "crappy" and "anecdotal" without entertaining even the slightest inquiry into who they are or their background is less than scientific.

Me saying I saw something and you going pffft… is the best demonstration of a closed mind. What scientific inquiry?

a reply to: intrptr

I'm sorry that you're butthurt over the fact that your anecdotes carry little to no scientific weight for fantastic claims but that's a problem you need to deal with, not me.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

You stated that Chicago Ohare had a "mundane explanation". I asked for the post explaining how an object can "punch a hole in the clouds".

Or your own, I guess. Impress me with the 'science' behind that one aspect.

a reply to: GetHyped

the fact that your anecdotes carry little to no scientific weight for fantastic claims but that's a problem you need to deal with, not me.

Your problem is declaring something "Unsicentific" when you weren't even there. I'm not hurt, just exposing your method of "scientific enquiry' for what it is for others.

Dis belief is as errant as belief.

Witnesses muse at both ends of the spectrum.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: greencmp

"settled science" is neither settled nor is it science.

Western medical industrialists abandoned science long ago when it failed to meet the needs of the profit machines.

Unless it comes to global warming right?

Then those people are science deniers, because the science is settled right!

Ive seen that happen time and time again here on ATS, its ok to refute science unless its global warming, THEN science is right on all levels A few of those people have already posted on this thread, and they look like hypocrites

Climate Change is a perfect of example of what the OP is talking about......"Cant be questioned"

Precisely, among other fashionable fast and loose postulates, AGW's crowd-pleasing attractiveness and the de facto acceptance of the wholly unscientific explications now popularized in the mens populi exemplify the phenomenon.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

You stated that Chicago Ohare had a "mundane explanation". I asked for the post explaining how an object can "punch a hole in the clouds".

Or your own, I guess. Impress me with the 'science' behind that one aspect.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Post up the pertinent details.

a reply to: intrptr

How many times must I quote the Wikipedia entry regarding anecdoted as scientific evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[15] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

You got a problem with that? Then I guess the scientific method is not for you.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: bastion

'The extra-terrestrial or paranormal or other pseudo-science people proclaim is far more likely to originate from the known failures and inebriation of the human mind than from nature itself'.

What about multiple witness sightings? Discounting experiences that I had with friends and total strangers who all saw the same thing is not very "scientific", is it?

Witnessing something isn't scientific so there'd be little point in scientists wasting their time with claims anyone can make without providing evidence.

Science follows this procedure.

1. - Make a guess at what's going on
2. - Devise an experiment to test accuracy of the guess
3. - If 1 and 2 are met come up with a hypothesis that can be reproduced in tests by others.
4. - If 1 to 3 are met the hypothesis may be true, if not it is wrong.

Eye witness accounts are at best an incredibly primitive version leading up to step 1 - so there's no point wasting time analysing something that has no scientific evidence . From the scientific POV the onus is on the person claiming something to carry out steps 1 - 3 if they want their claims to be taken seriously/someone to spend their time and money looking into something.

--

Feynmann uses the cargo cult analogy to differentiate between actual science and pseudo-science such as psychology and sociology which copy all the surface methods of scientific inquiry but lack any of the pith and substance required to make them scientific.

a reply to: bastion

Witnessing something isn't scientific

As a trained observer I apply scientific criteria to anything entering my MK 1 eyeballs. One aspect of Science after all, is a process of informed observation.

When you look trough a microscope, a telescope or review any instruments reading you look at that with your eyeballs and interpret the results with your brain.

Disregarding observed data might as well be reading brail as a blind man.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

How many times must I quote the Wikipedia entry regarding anecdoted as scientific evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[15] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

You got a problem with that? Then I guess the scientific method is not for you.

Nice dodge. I asked you to relate the "mundane explanation" you cite for Chicago Ohare. You keep defining anecdote.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: greencmp

"settled science" is neither settled nor is it science.

Western medical industrialists abandoned science long ago when it failed to meet the needs of the profit machines.

Unless it comes to global warming right?

Then those people are science deniers, because the science is settled right!

Ive seen that happen time and time again here on ATS, its ok to refute science unless its global warming, THEN science is right on all levels A few of those people have already posted on this thread, and they look like hypocrites

Climate Change is a perfect of example of what the OP is talking about......"Cant be questioned"

That's what I'll never understand... by definition climate science cannot be science. The scientific method is not employed. There is no valid experiment that can be done to prove humans are responsible for climate change. We would need multiple highly controlled planets with which to adjust variables in order to scientifically prove humans are responsible for climate change.

What the climate change "science" actually is is just the OPINION of many educated people on a subject that they are knowledgeable about. Good idea to ask someone a question within their field of expertise? Sure. But it's no different than asking a mechanic which is the best brand of breaks to buy. It's not science. I don't have the scientifically proven best breaks because the guy at the auto shop considers them the best. If 97% of mechanics agree they are the best breaks, they still are not scientifically proven to be the best.

So which is it, science people? Is climate change scientifically proven or not? Because judging by what this guy is saying, it isn't. Yet the same people who would support this guys opinion on valid science when it dismisses fringe theories, would dismiss it when it comes to climate change because they would have to dismiss it as well.

a reply to: intrptr

For the third time already, post up the relevant details. If it's another anecdote, save your breath.

a reply to: James1982

By your logic, the entire fields of observational science aren't science. That's just silly.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr


Your argument began with…

Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad.

Pluck out your eyes then, they are useless to you.

End of line…

a reply to: intrptr

Psychologists have questioned the reliability of eyewitness testimony since the beginning of the 20th century.[1]

This questioning of the credibility of eyewitness testimony began with Hugo Münsterberg, who first developed the field of forensic psychology. He specifically doubted the reliability of perception and memory in his book "On the Witness Stand" (1908). Interrogation was mentioned as an issue because of its intimidating methods. Through this[which?] he developed an early version of the lie detector. There was a torn[clarification needed] reaction to his ideas; while the legal arena was in stern disagreement, they became popular among the public.[2] It was due to DNA testing that innocent individuals who were convicted due to false eye-witness accounts were freed. . Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that many DNA-based exoneration cases involved eyewitness testimony.[3]

The legal system in the United States makes juries responsible for assessing the credibility of witness testimony presented in a trial.[4] Research has shown that mock juries are often unable to distinguish between a false and accurate eyewitness testimony. "Jurors" often appear to correlate the confidence level of the witness with the accuracy of their testimony. An overview of this research by Laub and Bornstein shows this to be an inaccurate gauge of accuracy.[5]

Another reason why eyewitness testimony may be inaccurate comes about due to an eyewitness's memory being influenced by things that they might hear or see after the crime occurred. This distortion is known as the post-event misinformation effect (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). After a crime occurs and an eyewitness comes forward, law enforcement tries to gather as much information as they can to avoid the influence that may come from the environment, such as the media. Many times when the crime is surrounded by much publicity, an eyewitness may experience source misattribution. Source misattribution occurs when a witness is incorrect about where or when they have the memory from. If a witness cannot correctly identify the source of their retrieved memory, the witness is seen as not reliable.

While some witnesses see the entirety of a crime happen in front of them, some witness only part of a crime. These witnesses are more likely to experience confirmation bias. Witness expectations are to blame for the distortion that may come from confirmation bias. For example, Lindholm and Christianson (1998) found that witnesses of a mock crime who did not witness the whole crime, nevertheless testified to what they expected would have happened. These expectations are normally similar across individuals due to the details of the environment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Keep swinging...

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Unless it comes to global warming right

But of course its all about the money, tax charges, carbon credits trading. Whats monstrous is that JP Morgan who played a critical part n the 2008 financial crisis get to control the market again
Climate science is very much like psychology, power control and money

Carbon Derivatives
www.cpcml.ca...

And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.

Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they've done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They're also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...