posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:17 AM
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
in science, good evidence tends to consist of tests whose results can be consistently duplicated with a tiny variation in the results.
Yes, this is called 'replicability', an important consequence of the principle of falsifiability that underlies the experimental method.
Sadly, not everything in the world can be thus proven scientifically.
One-of-a-kind events, such as the supposed Miracle of Fatima or the vast majority of UFO sightings, belong in that category. So do a wide variety of
other events and pheonomena, due to their irregularity, site-specificity, inaccessibility, etc. -- in a word, to their lack of replicability.
For such events, the best evidence we can hope for are unambiguous physical traces indicating that the event occurred, reliable eyewitness accounts
that corroborate each other and were recorded before the eyewitnesses had an opportunity to compare notes, and so on. Such evidence is rarely
compelling, leaving us in doubt about our opinions and conclusions.
That's the point at which the cranks, obsessives and paranoiacs move in...