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

[IcedEcliptic]

Well yes. But pallidin and stevenb do not know that, since they plugged their ears before any evidence came in.

I don't disagree with your point, I just think that it is for a thread in Philosophy, not here. This is about debunking. Start such a thread, and I will be there in a heartbeat and likely on your side of the fence.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't disagree with your point, I just think that it is for a thread in Philosophy, not here. This is about debunking. Start such a thread, and I will be there in a heartbeat and likely on your side of the fence.

Point conceded. I have been arguing principle.

My call: easily debunked. The rigor of this experiment is highly suspect, invalidating any results.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Point conceded. I have been arguing principle.

My call: easily debunked. The rigor of this experiment is highly suspect, invalidating any results.

A good principle, concession or not, build the thread and we will come. :)

 

[stevenb]

A point of order, if I may (a little late, granted).

What exactly is the claim we are all agreeing is being made and tested?

Personally, I give zero consideration to any claim of what has happened prior to the beginning of the experiment.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was considering the claim to be his claim that he can go 70 years without eating and without drinking. I made reference to this explicitly in post 193, but I would have made it more clear if I thought that the claim was only if he could survive 15 days, or for the duration of a test without cheating. I have little doubt that a trained person can go 15 days, maybe even more. I do think they would show signs of dehydration, but I think exceptional people could survive without major issues.

He also claimed that a divinity gave him this ability, but personally I just ignored this part. After all, he might have the ability and not know the right reason why he has it.

 

[Nick666]

I hope, for the sake of this forum, that you are discussing his claim that he lived for 10-15 days without food or water, and not the claim about living 70 years without food or water.

 

[stevenb]

I hope, for the sake of this forum, that you are discussing his claim that he lived for 10-15 days without food or water, and not the claim about living 70 years without food or water.

Well the first post explicitly states, "Man claims to have had no food or water for 70 years", so what was I to think?

 

[GreatEscapist]

I hope, for the sake of this forum, that you are discussing his claim that he lived for 10-15 days without food or water, and not the claim about living 70 years without food or water.

Well the first post explicitly states, "Man claims to have had no food or water for 70 years", so what was I to think?

Oy. These are just proof that the topic needs to be let alone.

To summarize:

Obviously we can't prove that anything profound happened over those 70 years. For all we know, he could have had imported Big Macs everyday of his life. So, with no evidence, we have to use common sense and known science to say that is bogus. Debunked.

Now, for the current experiment, it is flawed because he is allowed to bathe. That may or may not impact the experiment, but we have to assume that it does. So, science wins again to debunk.

But there are also principle issues- the one Dave brought up. Just because it is bogus doesn't mean it is automatically debunked. It's probably wrong, but until an experiment shows that, it's very close-minded to just disclaim it.
(Yeah, that sounds silly. Whatever.)

 

[CEL]

The doctor that conducts the experiment does not allow any control by an independent source. This is extremely suspicious.

 

[stevenb]

Oy. These are just proof that the topic needs to be let alone.

I've been thinking about this comment for a while now, and I decided I can't just let it sit here without comment.

There is no good reason to say that the topic should be let alone. Instead, people should consider the forum (debunking), they should clearly state the claim to be debunked in the starting post and then nobody should arbitrarily just change the claim with no clear mention of that fact. This thread was about the claim that a man can go 70 years (or indefinitely) without food and water. This was explicitly stated. The experiment was purported to offer evidence of that. The experiment itself should have never been interpreted as the claim. The claim is the reason for the experiment.

One thing that bothers me is that I never "just dismissed" the claim of 70 years without food and water, as has been suggested several times. I recognized the claim as extremely unlikely and contrary to all known science. I then looked for any basis why the claim should be taken seriously. There was no good basis, and I (and others) gave many good reasons to support this position. These reasons were largely ignored by the opposing view. When someone gives reasons, they should be debated with logic, not ignored or dismissed with a blanket statement of how the person is closed minded and just states an opinion with no basis. This happened several times in this thread.

I think this thread is an embarrassment to PF and to all involved in it, and the problem is the fact that people don't try to understand other people's points of view. They read too quickly, if at all, and just assume that the other person is an illogical fool with no valid points. They ignore large portions of what people say and focus on some small part and take it out of context.

Let's identify the real problems, and not just walk away from this train wreck without some lessons learned.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I've been thinking about this comment for a while now, and I decided I can't just let it sit here without comment.

There is no good reason to say that the topic should be let alone. Instead, people should consider the forum (debunking), they should clearly state the claim to be debunked in the starting post and then nobody should arbitrarily just change the claim with no clear mention of that fact. This thread was about the claim that a man can go 70 years (or indefinitely) without food and water. This was explicitly stated. The experiement was purported to offer evidence of that. The experiment itself should have never been interpreted as the claim. The claim is the the reason for the experiment.

One thing that bothers me is that I never just dismissed the claim of 70 years without food and water, as has been suggested several times. I recognized the claim as extremely unlikely and contrary to all known science. I then looked for any basis why the claim should be taken seriously. There was no good basis, and I (and others) gave many good reasons to support this position. These reasons were largely ignored by the opposing view. When someone gives reasons, they should be debated with logic, not ignored or dismissed with a blanket statement of how the person is closed minded and just states an opinion with no basis. This happened several times in this thread.

I think this thread is an embarrassment to PF and to all involved in it, and the problem is the fact that people don't try to understand other people's points of view. They read too quickly, if at all, and just assume that the other person is an illogical fool with no valid points. They ignore large portions of what people say and focus on some small part and take it out of context.

Let's identify the real problems, and not just walk away from this train wreck without some lessons learned.

I think the issue is simple, and already identified: DaveC clearly said he was making a principled argument, but did not believe these claims. It may be that this thread should be split into the S&D and Philosophy portions, but his principle is correct. The fact that this experiment is so suspect as to be unable to prove this astonishing claim, is the practical side.

 

[stevenb]

I think the issue is simple, and already identified: DaveC clearly said he was making a principled argument, ... but his principle is correct.

Please clearly state this "principled argument", or this "correct principle". I would like to see it spelled out in order to see if it's correct and to understand its relevance to the scientific method, as well as debunking and skepticism.

 

[tyroman]

IcedEcliptic,

I can not find the "correct principle" which you refer to...

From your last post;

"I think the issue is simple, and already identified: DaveC clearly said he was making a principled argument, but did not believe these claims. It may be that this thread should be split into the S&D and Philosophy portions, but his principle is correct."

From DaveC's first post in this thread (#17);
"The correct scientific method would be to not dismiss it until the results are in."

This statement seems to establish that he is of the opinion that the original claim rises to a level of credibility which justifies scientific scrutiny. If he does not hold this opinion, where does he find a basis in PRINCIPLE to apply the scientific method? Does he believe that ANY claim made by ANYone should be investigated scientifically - with the scientific method in full effect?

Recently, in my post #227, I asked for the criteria he "would apply to decide what is and what is not worthy of the time and effort required for scientific evaluation".

His response (see post #231) avoids the issue entirely;

"In this case, the only time an effort that needs to be expended is waiting.

The experiment is in-progress, nothing we do or say here will change that. I lose nothing by simply waiting."

The above response ignores the fact that the "powers that be" in India have raised the credibility of Prahlad Jani's claims to the level of something which warrants scientific investigation. At some level, in the minds of the non-science populace world-wide, this episode will blur their understanding of what science is about.

As scientists and engineers, we should all be offended when any "scientific" undertaking is so clearly irrational and so likely to taint the credibility of all science in the eyes of the vast majority of humanity who do not have a technical background.

.

 

[stevenb]

Well said tyroman!

If I could express myself so clearly, I think I would avoid many arguments.

I agree that that is the only statement by DaveC that seems to imply a principle. My problem with that statement, and its relevance here, is that this experiment might easily prove the claim wrong, but it can not prove that the claim is credible. Or, at least that is the argument I and others were making. If we argue that even the best possible outcome of the experiment does not lend credence to the claim, it is not so unreasonable to make a conclusion before the test is done. If someone does not agree with this argument, that is fine, but they should argue that point with logic, and not claim that the opposition is "just claiming" without a basis.

I want to be clear and stress that I'm not trying to reopen the debate, but rather am interested in a post-mortem analysis on why this thread went off a cliff. If PF is going to maintain this subforum (and I hope it does), there needs to be better operating principles used in the debates.

 

[pallidin]

Indeed, the train not only crashed, but went off a cliff.

For some reason it seems as if the "scientific method" is on trial here.
That is, apparently, accepted medical facts have no standing. Bizarre.

 

[stevenb]

... If we argue that even the best possible outcome of the experiment does not lend credence to the claim, it is not so unreasonable to make a conclusion before the test is done...

Let me expand on my own comment here, because I don't consider myself blamelesss, since perhaps some of my explanations were not clear, and I'm going to try and correct that going forward.

Now that the experiment is over, I think we can say that the results were the best possible in terms of supporting the man's claim. He went the full 15 days and they stopped the test with a statement that he was just fine and didn't eat or drink. Now, ... does anyone here consider this sufficient scientific evidence to ignore all of our past scientific knowledge and claim that a man can survive 70 years without food and water? Does anyone think that the result warrants longer and longer tests? If anyone can answer yes to these questions, I have no desire to argue with you, but let me just say that I am dumbfounded.

This was one of the key central arguments running through this thread. If, in fact, this "correct principle" was "waiting to see results before rushing to judgement", it seems to me the point is moot in this example.

I can definitely imagine a different situation with a different experiment that might require the use of the above principle, but there was no attempt in this thread to justify why this principle was appropriate in this example, and there were many arguments showing why it was not appropriate. In fact, the statement that this was the approriate principle to apply here was "just claimed" without justification.

 

[DaveC426913]

This statement seems to establish that he is of the opinion that the original claim rises to a level of credibility which justifies scientific scrutiny.

The above response ignores the fact that the "powers that be" in India have raised the credibility of Prahlad Jani's claims to the level of something which warrants scientific investigation. At some level, in the minds of the non-science populace world-wide, this episode will blur their understanding of what science is about.

As scientists and engineers, we should all be offended when any "scientific" undertaking is so clearly irrational and so likely to taint the credibility of all science in the eyes of the vast majority of humanity who do not have a technical background.

.

I have highlit several important phrases above.

The principle is this:

Whether a claim is "clearly irrational" or whether it "rises to the level of investigation" is a matter of opinion. The principle is that those who would dismiss it outright are not using a rational litmus test of whether something is worthy of investigation.

Rationally, there is no harm is allowing even the silliest of experiments to proceed. The silliness of the experiment will manifest as unworthy when, under scrutiny, the experimental rigor falls apart. And frankly, that's is the only rational reason to dismiss a claim/experiment.

So, in principle, unless you actually examine any new claim (i.e. let the experiment proceed), you cannot rationally dismiss it.


(This is not to say that you couldn't bet on it being silly. Just that your bet is an unscientific one.)

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I have highlit several important phrases above.

The principle is this:

Whether a claim is "clearly irrational" or whether it "rises to the level of investigation" is a matter of opinion. The principle is that those who would dismiss it outright are not using a rational litmus test of whether something is worthy of investigation.

Rationally, there is no harm is allowing even the silliest of experiments to proceed. The silliness of the experiment will manifest as unworthy when, under scrutiny, the experimental rigor falls apart. And frankly, that's is the only rational reason to dismiss a claim/experiment.

So, in principle, unless you actually examine any new claim (i.e. let the experiment proceed), you cannot rationally dismiss it.


(This is not to say that you couldn't bet on it being silly. Just that your bet is an unscientific one.)

I don't see how this can be argued against. We can say with some arbitrarily high confidence, ( I think you said 99.999 earlier in the thread) that this is a hoax, but certainty is a different matter.

Stevenb, I don't understand your objection to this principle. The hoax is a hoax, but that is based on the setup of the study, the absurdity of the claim, but even then it cannot be dismissed on purely scientific grounds. You cannot simply "know" things must be true, you can only be confident through repetition.

 

[stevenb]

OK, thank you for clearly defining the principle.

I see a number of logical flaws in it. It is an unproven principle that is useless in science. To bring this up in a debate and use this as a basis to say that people who apply scientific reasoning to make a reasonable conclusion to high confidence level are "just claiming" without basis, is inexcusable.


You say:
"Whether a claim is "clearly irrational" or whether it "rises to the level of investigation" is a matter of opinion. The principle is that those who would dismiss it outright are not using a rational litmus test of whether something is worthy of investigation."

According to this there is no rational litmus test whether something is worthy of investigation. It makes an assumption without proof. It states that a person can not use any known facts to make a judgement and labels such a person as irrational.


You say:
"Rationally, there is no harm is allowing even the silliest of experiments to proceed. The silliness of the experiment will manifest as unworthy when, under scrutiny, the experimental rigor falls apart. And frankly, that's is the only rational reason to dismiss a claim/experiment."

This is completely unproven and has evidence against it. There is harm as pointed out by several people (harm to the man in stressing his body, harm to nonscientists who are misled, harm to the pursuit of science because of inefficiency in doing needless experiments, harm to people when taxes and other money is wasted). Also, it assumes that the unworthiness of an experiment is revealed during or after it is done, when the premeditation of the experiment is most crucial. Only a carefully planned and executed experiment can reveal useful data and allowing silly experiments is harmful in itself.


You say:

"So, in principle, unless you actually examine any new claim (i.e. let the experiment proceed), you cannot rationally dismiss it."

You can't dismiss it to 100% certainty, but that is lame argumentation and a useless principle. When a new claim invalidates all other science, you need a good reason to consider the claim. Assuming you find good reasons, you need overwhelming experimental verification to even begin to take it seriously, and silly experiments are not the way to proceed. So, if you want to say the word "dismiss" means 100% dismissal, fine, but it takes a lot of nerve to bring this into a debate in a non-philosophy thread.

In the full light of day, I see this principle for what it is. If no one else does, I'm at a loss for words. If this is the standard to be used at PF, then I must withdraw my call to try to learn some lessons here. There is no point to debate at all.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

OK, thank you for clearly defining the principle.

I see a number of logical flaws in it. It is an unproven principle that is useless in science. To bring this up in a debate and use this as a basis to say that people who apply scientific reasoning to make a reasonable conclusion to high confidence level are "just claiming" without basis, is inexcusable.


You say:
"Whether a claim is "clearly irrational" or whether it "rises to the level of investigation" is a matter of opinion. The principle is that those who would dismiss it outright are not using a rational litmus test of whether something is worthy of investigation."

According to this there is no rational litmus test whether something is worthy of investigation. It makes an assumption without proof. It states that a person can not use any known facts to make a judgement and labels such a person as irrational.


You say:
"Rationally, there is no harm is allowing even the silliest of experiments to proceed. The silliness of the experiment will manifest as unworthy when, under scrutiny, the experimental rigor falls apart. And frankly, that's is the only rational reason to dismiss a claim/experiment."

This is completely unproven and has evidence against it. There is harm as pointed out by several people (harm to the man in stressing his body, harm to nonscientists who are misled, harm to the pursuit of science because of inefficiency in doing needless experiments, harm to people when taxes and other money is wasted). Also, it assumes that the unworthiness of an experiment is revealed during or after it is done, when the premeditation of the experiment is most crucial. Only a carefully planned and executed experiment can reveal useful data and allowing silly experiments is harmful in itself.


You say:

"So, in principle, unless you actually examine any new claim (i.e. let the experiment proceed), you cannot rationally dismiss it."

You can't dismiss it to 100% certainty, but that is lame argumentation and a useless principle. When a new claim invalidates all other science, you need a good reason to consider the claim. Assuming you find good reasons, you need overwhelming experimental verification to even begin to take it seriously, and silly experiments are not the way to proceed. So, if you want to say the word "dismiss" means 100% dismissal, fine, but it takes a lot of nerve to bring this into a debate in a non-philosophy thread.

In the full light of day, I see this principle for what it is. If no one else does, I'm at a loss for words. If this is the standard to be used at PF, then I must withdraw my call to try to learn some lessons here. There is no point to debate at all.

You don't really understand what the scientific method is, do you?

 

[stevenb]

You don't really understand what the scientific method is, do you?

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_methodElements of scientific method

There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. The scientific community and philosophers of science generally agree on the following classification of method components. These methodological elements and organization of procedures tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences than social sciences. Nonetheless, the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below.
Four essential elements[25][26][27] of a scientific method[28] are iterations,[29][30] recursions,[31] interleavings, and orderings of the following:
Characterizations (observations,[32] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses[33][34] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[35]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[36] from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments[37] (tests of all of the above)
Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry). The elements above are often taught in the educational system.[38]

 

[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.