Re: Magic 108 what science is not

[lazlo%triton.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)]

jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger) writes:

> 1.  Science is
	A system for exploring and comprehending reality.

> 2.  When faced with a dissenting opinion, a good scientist
	Asks for evidence, or at least references.

> 3.  When faced with a novel experience, a good scientist
	Takes notes and tries to find the simplest explanation for the
	phenomenon that is consistent with what is already understood.

> 4.  The proposition that human beings have as-yet-undiscovered sensory
>     modes is
	As yet unproven.

> 5.  Quantum mechanics
	Explains some previously-unexplained phenomena but isn't a wildcard
	"explanation" for *every* unexplained phenomena any more than
	sunspots or aliens are.

> Daniel S Riley (a reasonable man!) writes:

Essentially what I said, with more "metaphysical" buzzwords.

> I expect to gain evidence gradually, by paying attention to my experiences.

Your experiences are not "evidence" of a phenomena any more than Billy
Graham's faith is "evidence" of God's existance or my dreams about k.d.lang
last night are "evidence" of her heterosexuality.

> This is so trivially obvious: *science demands that we look without
> preconceptions*.

You've loaded your explanations of this phenomenon with so
many preconceptions that it's creaking under their weight.

> Dogmatic scientists might experience every sort of paranormal event, but
> choose to deny it because it wins them no advantage, even makes them
> *more* vulnerable to their competitors.

*Scientists* might experience all sorts of things that *might be
interpreted* as paranormal events, but (unlike you) will not proclaim them
to be so until some evidence has been uncovered.

If you want to put yourself above the rules of the game, fine, but don't
pretend at any sort of "science" while you're doing it.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)