X-Message-Number: 18098 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:04:49 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #18084 - #18092 To Wm Henderson: Yes, science's way of "knowing" (loose term) involves repeatedly testing hypotheses. A theory isn't considered valid unless the outcomes are sufficiently reliable. Why so much emphasis on reliability and repeatability? One word ... "Variance". Quite simply, we humans often make errors in our perception, errors in our interpretation, and errors in our communication regarding the world around us. Even when someone calls her/himself a scientist and attempts to use controls and sound statistical procedures to investigate a phenomenon, other scientists are duty bound to be skeptical and vigilant for mistakes in methodology, interpretation, or conclusions. George Smith gives us a good example. George Smith (Hi George!) wrote: >So the evidence DOES exist. >Though "rare." >How very interesting. >I understand it only requires ONE white crow to prove >that not all crows are black. I believe the essential point here is "How sure are we that there really was a white crow? and if the crow does appear to be white, what is the most reasonable and parsimonious explanation for it's existence?" Besides, science would never say that all crows are black. Absolutes are unwise. Just read scientific literature and you can soon become annoyed with the repeated use of words like "seems", "may", and "appears". I also don't think of science as being contemptuous of the efforts of others working outside the domain of science although "individuals" in science may do so at times. But science can't, for example, state that there's no such thing as telepathy. Proving that something doesn't exist simply isn't possible. Science does, however, advise against jumping to conclusions. To stretch George's example a bit, consider near death experiences (and I really hope a thread doens't start here on this topic - please email me privately if you must respond - this is just an axample). My readings suggest that about 25% of those who deanimate and are then resuscitated subsequently report one or more attributes of an NDE. So we are left to wonder: Do 3/4 of these people forget their ND experiences? Do 3/4 have NDEs but refuse to report them? Do 1/4 misinterpret their perceptions? Do only 1/4 have the capacity to experience NDE's? How do we figure out the truth here? Well, we can't. I try not to have an opinion on such matters because of the ambiguity, but many tend to have the need to form opinions on things (i.e. cognitive closure). This includes scientists and non-scientists. Some may accept the validity of NDE's because they believe it supports their other beliefs (e.g. the existence of an afterlife). I find it interesting that those who claim to rely on faith often try to point to evidence which they believe supports their faith. If they found enough evidence, it couldn't really be called faith anymore, could it? As for telepathy, I'd actually like to see scientists take a greater interest in it but that's unlikely for the foreseeable future. But this isn't due to the nature of science, it's due to the culture of the humans doing science. I know the military showed some interest in remote sensing at least. Better not let them know about your abilities, William. :-) Best regards, Scott Badger __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18098