Taboo woo woo science?

Watch this, if you can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyC8csY5oxM

I'm not posting this thread to spam you, some members realllly need to take a look at their own taboos. I will respond to comments unless clearly non-sense.

Question/Suggestion - Why not have all of these in one thread?

Personally I don't care about these threads, but I don't like seeing your rep go down like a train wreck.

Why does woo-woo science exist? Because it does not follow with scientific consensus.

Why does scientific consensus exist? Because evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction.

When someone comes forward with some kind of crackpot theory, they will often present it alongside cherry-picked evidence in support of their theory and prance around like they've revolutionized their field. Science doesn't work like that.

If you want to prove the expanding Earth hypothesis (for example), you have to develop a repeatable methodology to take observations and have those observations counter accepted scientific consensus. Once it's shown that the theory of continental drift is shown to be unable to explain your observations, then you can go about the modification of the accepted theory or the introduction of a new one.

Most rejections from peer-reviewed journals are due to flawed methodology or overly grand conclusions from data that do not meaningfully suggest it.

The peer review process ensures that new theories are a result of good science. Bad methodology is rejected. Unwarranted conclusions are rejected.

That said, over time good methodology that results in observations that go against scientific consensus will result in a change of scientific consensus. But it necessarily must go slowly, and necessarily must be repeated by many scientists before being accepted.

Scientists who try to say "oh, the continental drift is wrong because of this one thing one place, therefore the expanding Earth hypothesis must be correct" are laughed out of the journals for bad methodology and faulty conclusions. Then those so-called scientists turn to YouTube paint themselves as persecuted geniuses and inspire the imaginations the people to whom crackpot theories appeal.

TL;DR: The peer-review process isn't closed-minded, it's just that some scientists are so open-minded their brains fell out...

Trevor

Great observations, glad to entertain. Seriously though, did anyone watch the whole video and take anything valuable away from it? I've never known of a single case where any ones brain fell out from having an open mind.

Laser Project said:

Great observations, glad to entertain. Seriously though, did anyone watch the whole video and take anything valuable away from it? I've never known of a single case where any ones brain fell out from having an open mind.

Click to expand...

I would count being easily sucked into theories of crackpot scientists due to lack of critical analysis of their observations, methodology, and conclusions as being so open-minded that one's brain fell out.

I watched about half the video before posting. The speaker cites examples of scientific progress that were once considered taboo in an effort to point out how the scientific method hampers progress. It seems like he wants to level criticism at the scientific community for not immediately accepting those ideas that we now view as correct. However, he never makes reference to competing ideas that were ultimately rejected that would more than likely sound as ridiculous as cryptozoology. Once again, selective use of evidence in order to make a point with the audience. Sound familiar?

It's also worth noting that the speaker is Dean Radin, a parapsychologist. As in someone who studies That is worth noting because he himself probably resents the scientific method for not accepting his ideas. Let's check Wikipedia!

From Wikipedia:

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims. In addition, the review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.

Click to expand...

Chris French criticized Radin for his selective historical overview of parapsychology and ignoring evidence of fraud. French recounts that the medium Florence Cook was caught in acts of trickery and two of the Fox sisters confessed to fraud, but that Radin did not mention this fact. Radin has claimed the results from psi research are as consistent by the same standards as any other scientific discipline but Ray Hyman has written many parapsychologists disagree with that opinion and openly admit the evidence for psi is "inconsistent, irreproducible, and fails to meet acceptable scientific standards".

Radin's paranormal claims have been roundly rejected by those in the skeptical and mainstream scientific communities, some of whom have suggested that he has embraced pseudoscience and that he misunderstands the nature of science. The physicist Robert L. Park has written "No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists like Jahn and Radin, and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments." Steven Novella wrote that Radin's alleged positive results from parapsychological experiments have not been replicated by the scientific community.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Dr. Radin is not happy that his "taboo" ideas were not accepted without question.

Trevor

Yet, his research findings and methods are solid. Says something doesn't it?

Laser Project said:

Yet, his research findings and methods are solid. Says something doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Please provide evidence of his findings being "solid."

Please, do yourself a favor and read why he is criticized. Look at the cited works in the paragraphs critical of him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin#Parapsychology

Trevor

Ok give me awhile. I'm out most of the weekend away from home, using my phone now. I can go directly to him, have had a few email exchanges with him over the years.

Laser Project said:

Ok give me awhile. I'm out most of the weekend away from home, using my phone now.

Click to expand...

Make sure you evaluate the claims of his critic, paying special attention to the way that Radin ignores proper statistical practice to prove his points...

I'm excited to read your well-written, critical evaluation of all available evidence.

Trevor

Things said:

Click to expand...

:takeit:

This has been posted before, but it's relevant again. Please watch it, laser projects. It will explain the backlash you've been experiencing.

Cyparagon said:

This has been posted before, but it's relevant again. Please watch it, laser projects. It will explain the backlash you've been experiencing.

Click to expand...

I've never seen that before. Applies perfectly to this situation.

Time to neg-rep you LP. Up to this point I've politely ignored your posts, regardless of the topics, but again you're just spamming the forum with links to other sites without providing any meaningful content yourself.

Bionic-Badger said:

Time to neg-rep you LP. Up to this point I've politely ignored your posts, regardless of the topics, but again you're just spamming the forum with links to other sites without providing any meaningful content yourself.

Click to expand...

Ditto. I thought you were on a better streak, but it turns out you're still making new threads about nonsense that you don't even take the time to critically evaluate yourself. Neg from me.