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

[IcedEcliptic]

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.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

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...

 

[stevenb]

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.

 

[stevenb]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.