82-year-old who claims he has not had any food or water

  • Thread starter Thread starter phyzmatix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Food Water
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim made by an 82-year-old man who asserts he has not consumed food or water for 70 years. Participants explore the implications of this claim from various angles, including medical, psychological, and speculative perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the claim, suggesting it is impossible based on known medical science.
  • One participant proposes that the man may have Night Eating Syndrome as a possible explanation.
  • Several participants assert that the claim is fraudulent, with one stating that surviving six days without food or water is plausible but not for years.
  • There is a discussion about the scientific method, with some arguing that the claim should not be dismissed outright until further evidence is gathered.
  • Concerns are raised about the ethical implications of monitoring the man’s health under such extreme conditions.
  • Some participants speculate humorously about the man's potential abilities or motivations, including references to mystical powers or chlorophyll.
  • There are calls for updates on the man's condition and whether any scientific observations will be made.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the man's claim, with some believing it to be a hoax while others suggest a need for careful observation before reaching a conclusion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the claim and the appropriate response to it.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of the information available, including the lack of evidence supporting the man's claims and the ethical considerations surrounding monitoring his health.

  • #271
stevenb said:
Yes, I do completely.

Then why is that you fail to grasp its basis tenants? I could tell you that my bowl of pasta turned into a squirrel, and you'd be right to scoff and be quite sure that I am lying, crazy, or a squirrel ate my pasta. That being said, to do so is not scientific: science requires investigation, constant reappraisal, and replication of results. This is in part why, "All theories are wrong". Just because we apply a particular standard in day to day life, does not make that genuinely scientific.

Only if something is not verifiable or falsifiable by its very nature, is it no longer a matter for science.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #272
stevenb said:
Yes, I do completely. But, apparently PF is a twilight zone where the outside world standards do not apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes... it is a forum full of scientists that has it wrong, but you are right. Arrogance...
 
  • #273
IcedEcliptic said:
Yes... it is a forum full of scientists that has it wrong, but you are right. Arrogance...

Well, why is it that anytime an argument is made, the response is to make statements like yours. Why not respond to my arguments instead of accusing me of not knowing the scientific method. I am a scientific researcher and have been for decades.

This entire issue goes beyond just the scientific method anyway. It gets into issues of fraud and other things which have already been mentioned.

I know enough to know that the stated principle is not part of the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
  • #274
IcedEcliptic said:
Yes... it is a forum full of scientists that has it wrong, but you are right. Arrogance...

I challenge you to make an argument for why DaveC's principle is part of the scientific method. Then we can have something to talk about.

The principle says.

1. Scientist are unable to judge what rises to the level of being worthy of investigation

2. It says silly experiments are just fine.

3. It says that things must be proved to 100 % certainty.

You just put me out of business.
 
Last edited:
  • #275
I don't understand the problem here. So far we have no published [a qualfied journal] experimental evidence to support the claim. And it would only be taken seriously if the results were duplicated.

While known scientific principles tell us what we expect, we cannot assume a priori what is and is not possible. The fallacy would be the implicit assertion that any phenomena that violates our expectations, would necessarily violate the laws of physics. While opportunities to discover new physics, are rare, the ability of humans to anticipate all possibilities is severly limited - the most essential movtivation for emperical science, rather than philosophy, as the means to discovery. It is a strawman argument to assert that a truthful claim would violate the laws of physics. We can only assert that would seem to be the case.

In any event, if this claim is published in a mainstream journal, or if the feat is duplicated under controlled conditions, we can open the thread for discussion. For the moment I think we all agree that the most likely explanation for the claim, is fraud.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
7K
  • · Replies 266 ·
9
Replies
266
Views
31K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
11K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K