Saladsamurai said:
I reread them and cannot see how Dave is misrepresenting you words let alone how he is trying to fool you.
I really get tired of having to explain such obvious things, but very well, if you insist.
He said the following:
The correct scientific method would be to not dismiss it until the results are in.
Six days without water is a long time. He should definitely be showing signs of degradation (which is what they'll look for). If he shows no signs of degradation, then they might go for a longer test.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fraud too. But you can't claim you're giving it scientific due diligence by claiming "It just isn't true."
So he is attributing the following things to my statements.
1. I have dismissed the claim before the results are in.
2. I have claimed to have given scientific due diligence.
3. I have stated that "It just isn't true" without any other logic.
First of all, I haven't dismissed the claim, I have pointed out that there is no evidence by which we are asked to believe the claim. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence in science. The claim is basically a claim that conservation of mass does not apply to the one human. Apparently, we are to believe that he can breath out water vapor and not lose water. Sorry, but I need evidence for that. The only evidence is his being alive after 6 days without drinking water. Aside from the fact that he could be sneaking water, an average person is able to survive 10 days without water, which implies that a trained person should be able to do much better. So there is no evidence at all. There is, as yet, nothing substantial to dismiss, but I'm open to see more evidence, even if I'm highly skeptical. In any event, I pointed out that the situation becomes more interesting if he is still alive after a few weeks, and the next question is then whether he is cheating. This is not dismissing the claim, it is considering that more evidence may come in and further investigation would then be needed. Yes, I point out that the claim would still be very unlikely to be true because a magic trick is not very difficult, while the violation of basic physical laws is contrary to the entire known history of scientific evidence. One has to weigh probabilities in life, and consider past experience.
Second, I have not claimed to have done scientific due diligence on this question. I have simply made the most logical conclusion with the facts I have available. This is the most scientific approach I can take under the circumstances. I am not in a position to do full due-diligence, even if I wanted to. I would have to quit my job, fly from the USA to India, kidnap this guy and then subject him to my own cruelly devised scientific experiments. Forgive me if I don't do that. The most you can say is that I'm implying that the claim is unworthy of serious scientific consideration, but I make no claims to have done scientific due diligence. So why is this claim attributed to me, and why do you not understand my objection to the false claim being attributed to me?
Third, I have not claimed that "it just isn't true" without applying some scientific facts and logical thinking. I first stated my final conclusion without explaining my reasoning. Then, when asked, I gave some insight to why I reached my conclusion. I have applied the "baloney detection kit" and concluded that there is no justification to believe the claim. It is most likely not true and not worthy of serious contemplation. Scientists make these judgements all the time. There are some things worthy of investigation and there are some things unworthy of consideration. One applies logic and reverses the question "why should I believe that?". The available scientific evidence does not even suggest the claim should be considered. So, not only is there no evidence for the claim, there is no good reason to even consider the question of whether the claim is true. Basically, applying logic and common sense is scientific, even if not "scientific due diligence", and is much more than simply stating that "it just isn't true". Again, why is this statement attributed to me, and why don't you understand that I object to it?
