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

[DaveC426913]

I too believe this "holy man" has demonstrated nothing yet, but agree with much of the sentiment conveyed by Dave.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I understand what it might feel like to be in a kangaroo court.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you want to entertain the possibility of this claim being valid, then you open the door to any crackpot idea.

Bzzt. Circular logic.

Your premise presupposes that this idea is crackpot, accusing it of rubbing shoulders with "other" crackpot ideas. If you claim it's crackpot you'll have to prove that before using this argument.

Your "martians" are a straw man. i.e. you argument against this case is weak, so you're trying to shift it to a place that's stronger.

Argue this case on its merits.

 

[DaveC426913]

Many things in science do not have precise definitions. ...

Just like I know a running dog is life, and a rock is not life, and a virus is a gray area, even without a clear definition of life; I know that QM is not crazy, and this "holy-man's claim" is crazy, and cold-fusion is a gray area, even without a clear definition of crazy.

So, your rational, scientifically-minded argument is ... wait for it ...

You just know it's wrong.


Gotcha.


I wish to point that I have achieved my victory condition for the discussion. It does not matter whether, in the end, you are right or wrong about the claim, I have stuck through long enough to see you admit that your conclusion about it is based on your gut feeling - your preconceptions - your "just knowing".

You will be happier being right than being rational, i.e it doesn't matter how you got your answer, all that matters is if you get the right one.

 

[stevenb]

So, your rational, scientifically-minded argument is ... wait for it ...

You just know it's wrong.Gotcha.

Sure just ignore all the facts if you like. Just say "I just know it's wrong" with no basis at all. Just ignore my knowledge of 30 years of studying science. Just ignore my knowledge of more than 100 other con men that tried to fool people and were eventually uncovered as frauds. Just ignore my study of the techniques of deception and the ease with which people can be deceived. Just ignore the arguments given in the thread of why it is rational to label this claim a fraud. Just ignore the reference to Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit which clearly shows there is nothing of substance here to even consider this as a science question. Just ignore common sense and keep quoting cliches about science and keeping an open mind. Just ignore the fact that the experiment makes it clear that access to water was given and simple magician's techniques were available. Just ignore the fact that a magic trick like this is child's play compared to what professional magicians are capable of. Just ignore the fact that the claim is so far fetched and yet there is NO evidence at all to believe in it: none at all - zero. Just ignore the fact that the experiment was terminated in such a short time period that an exceptional person might actually be able to survive without food and water without tricks at all. Just ignore the fact that there is no viable scientific explanation for the claim and indeed it violates ALL known science. -All of it!

Just ignore anything you like. You are free to do so.

However, I will not ignore the fact that you have not offered one good reason to believe this claim has any scientific legs to stand on. Your only basis is his claim and the fact that he seems to have not had water and seems to show no ill effects. Big deal. You can compare that to the full history of science that says that the claim is not feasible? You can seriously not imagine fraud and tricks, or one man who has several traits off in the tails of Gaussian distributions that let him go 15 days without water, rather than the average 10 days. You can't see that a trained man using meditation with reduced breathing in a climate controlled room, might last a lot longer than an unprepared man in a panicked state trying to find water? You can't see fraud and lies staring you in the face? Please, you're crazy if you think I'm stupid enough to really think you believe what you are saying.

By the way, congratulations on your victory. The world is full of many champions like you.

 

[phyzmatix]

What would you give as an example of a "crackpot" claim? Please, do tell.

I don't see how it will help, but if it makes you feel any better: "1 + 1 is not equal to 2."

Secondly, I'm not disregarding claims for lack of references. I was merely asking that someone cite a reference.

And you set that up as a challenge. If a challenge cannot be met, it results in "victory" for the challenger by default. In this particular case, your challenge is to provide you with references to support the possibility of such claims being biologically possible. Since no references exist, you're assured of "victory", i.e. you may then disregard the claim for lack of reference.

Thirdly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, and in the "domain of science" I asked if anyone could cite any scientific study which shows that it(the original claim from India) is biologically possible.

Can't get ANYMORE scientific and rational than that!

You're still hammering on the references. Referenced studies are limited in extent to that of what is currently considered as known so I ask you yet again, should science cease all investigation into subjects, topics, phenomena or even ideas for which no references exist?

On the side, I find it quite humorous that you combine calls for rationality with seven (I counted ) exclammation marks. It definitely put a smile on my face

It's not irrelevant at all, and you are suggesting that we accept crackpot claims since you made your comment in a thread about a crackpot claim.

I never labelled this thread as "crackpot", you did. Your view is subjective so your comment is irrelevant.

I wish to point that I have achieved my victory condition for the discussion. It does not matter whether, in the end, you are right or wrong about the claim, I have stuck through long enough to see you admit that your conclusion about it is based on your gut feeling - your preconceptions - your "just knowing".

You will be happier being right than being rational, i.e it doesn't matter how you got your answer, all that matters is if you get the right one.

Does that mean you're letting them go now?

 

[Galteeth]

Crazy: something from nothing: a man who expends energy without intake of energy to reduce to a less ordered state.

Maybe he's battery powered.

 

[pallidin]

In this particular case, your challenge is to provide you with references to support the possibility of such claims being biologically possible. Since no references exist, you're assured of "victory", i.e. you may then disregard the claim for lack of reference.

Yes, you are quite right! This event is not biologically possible.
In this case however, science is victorious, not me.

Science wins, AGAIN! I love it.

 

[Mentallic]

Maybe he's battery powered.

Don't you realize the human body is like a battery?

Batteries run out too, and we need to recharge them with more fuel to keep them going...

 

[Huckleberry]

Yes, you are quite right! This event is not biologically possible.
In this case however, science is victorious, not me.

Science wins, AGAIN! I love it.

Assuming science can 'win' anything, what has it won? The man's claim to never requiring food or water was never tested. I assumed from the article that the purpose of the tests was to find a military application for the man's technique, which has the potential to save lives.

No new information enters a closed system. The man's claim is outrageous, but if he claims he can do this outrageous thing that defies understanding I don't see how it is science to dismiss his claim without also questioning our understanding. It could be argued that questioning this particular claim is a waste of time and effort, but science that loses its skepticism and claims understanding without questioning contrary evidence fails. Nobody has said that there is any reliable evidence to this claim, so what has been tested? If there is a contest here that science has won then it has defeated itself. There are no other competitors.

 

[pallidin]

I am no longer interested in this totally absurd discussion.
LATER...

 

[stevenb]

I am no longer interested in this totally absurd discussion.
LATER...

I am forced to agree. Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov are no doubt rolling in their graves right now. It's a very sad day for science.

See you all in another thread.

 

[phyzmatix]

Yes, you are quite right! This event is not biologically possible.
In this case however, science is victorious, not me.

Science wins, AGAIN! I love it.

You are very entertaining! Every time you come across that which you perceive as a flaw in an argument, you pounce on it without ensuring that it actually is a flaw. In the post you quoted here, "you" is not intended as a generalisation like the royal "we", it is not a reference to scientists or humans as a whole but you, pallidin, in particular! Now read it again after making the necessary adjustments

In this particular case, pallidin's challenge is to provide pallidin with references to support the possibility of such claims being biologically possible. Since no references exist, pallidin's assured of "victory", i.e. pallidin may then disregard the claim for lack of reference.

I also wish to point out that one of your statements needs qualification as follows: "This event is not biologically possible as far as we know."

That's the point we're contiually trying to get across to you.

No new information enters a closed system. The man's claim is outrageous, but if he claims he can do this outrageous thing that defies understanding I don't see how it is science to dismiss his claim without also questioning our understanding. It could be argued that questioning this particular claim is a waste of time and effort, but science that loses its skepticism and claims understanding without questioning contrary evidence fails. Nobody has said that there is any reliable evidence to this claim, so what has been tested? If there is a contest here that science has won then it has defeated itself. There are no other competitors.

Bravo!

I am no longer interested in this totally absurd discussion.
LATER...

She says it better than I can:

"A great many things have been pronounced untrue and absurd, and even impossible, by the highest authorities in the age in which they lived, which have afterwards, and, indeed, within a very short period, been found to be both possible and true." ~ Catherine Crowe

I am forced to agree. Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov are no doubt rolling in their graves right now. It's a very sad day for science.

See you all in another thread.

"While he lives, he must think; while he thinks, he must dream." ~ Isaac Asimov

"The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan

 

[IcedEcliptic]

So, your rational, scientifically-minded argument is ... wait for it ...

You just know it's wrong.


Gotcha.


I wish to point that I have achieved my victory condition for the discussion. It does not matter whether, in the end, you are right or wrong about the claim, I have stuck through long enough to see you admit that your conclusion about it is based on your gut feeling - your preconceptions - your "just knowing".

You will be happier being right than being rational, i.e it doesn't matter how you got your answer, all that matters is if you get the right one.

You win? I did not realize that this was a contest, I was under the absurd illusion that this was the skepticism and debunking, and not the philosophy forum. You cannot win or lose a contest that you are the sole entrant in. As for Gokul's point, I would not be so cheered to have pages of my arguments reduced to "sentiment".

 

[DaveC426913]

You cannot win or lose a contest that you are the sole entrant in.

Yes you can. It is called a personal victory condition, which is exactly what I said it was.

In any exchange, we all have criteria for success. My criterion was never to have anyone concede or change their mind (this is the intertubes ). In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2717238&postcount=186" I claimed that y'all (including stephen) was not being rational in his conclusion that this is fraud. He admitted it of his own free will. That's all I have been arguing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure just ignore all the facts if you like. Just say "I just know it's wrong" with no basis at all. Just ignore my knowledge of 30 years of studying science. Just ignore my knowledge of more than 100 other con men that tried to fool people and were eventually uncovered as frauds. Just ignore my study of the techniques of deception and the ease with which people can be deceived. Just ignore the arguments given in the thread of why it is rational to label this claim a fraud. Just ignore the reference to Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit which clearly shows there is nothing of substance here to even consider this as a science question. Just ignore common sense and keep quoting cliches about science and keeping an open mind. Just ignore the fact that the experiment makes it clear that access to water was given and simple magician's techniques were available. Just ignore the fact that a magic trick like this is child's play compared to what professional magicians are capable of. Just ignore the fact that the claim is so far fetched and yet there is NO evidence at all to believe in it: none at all - zero. Just ignore the fact that the experiment was terminated in such a short time period that an exceptional person might actually be able to survive without food and water without tricks at all. Just ignore the fact that there is no viable scientific explanation for the claim and indeed it violates ALL known science. -All of it!

Just ignore anything you like. You are free to do so.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying precedent, while a good guide, does not convict this case Your insistence that it does is flawed scientific reasoning.

And again, I'm noy saying you're wrong in your conclusion*, just that making a conclusion is premature.

*I would place my money right along with you, but money is not rational.

However, I will not ignore the fact that you have not offered one good reason to believe this claim has any scientific legs to stand on. Your only basis is his claim and the fact that he seems to have not had water and seems to show no ill effects. Big deal. You can compare that to the full history of science that says that the claim is not feasible?

What troubles me is that you are reluctant to wait and see.

You can seriously not imagine fraud and tricks, or one man who has several traits off in the tails of Gaussian distributions that let him go 15 days without water, rather than the average 10 days. You can't see that a trained man using meditation with reduced breathing in a climate controlled room, might last a lot longer than an unprepared man in a panicked state trying to find water? You can't see fraud and lies staring you in the face? Please, you're crazy if you think I'm stupid enough to really think you believe what you are saying.

By the way, congratulations on your victory. The world is full of many champions like you.

If any or all these things are your concern, your stance should be that of questioning the rigor of the experiment. But that's not your stance. Your stance is that you don't think there is any point in letting the experiment run.

That was my reference to a kangaroo court. The guy is guilty. Why bother with a trial?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yes you can. It is called a personal victory condition, which is exactly what I said it was.

In any exchange, we all have criteria for success. My criterion was never to have anyone concede or change their mind (this is the intertubes ). In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2717238&postcount=186" I claimed that y'all (including stephen) was not being rational in his conclusion that this is fraud. He admitted it of his own free will. That's all I have been arguing.

The intertubes, that congressman still makes me wince. I understand you, but this thread has moved from the OP, and towards: [PLAIN]http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/8342/internetseriousbusinessyg0.jpg

You may be taking this as fun, but some others don't seem to be in on the gag.

 

[tyroman]

DaveC426913

Is it true that you are willing to "entertain the possibility of this claim being valid"?

If so, are there circumstances under which you would NOT be willing to entertain the possibility of ANY scientific claim being valid?

In my experience (and use of the English language) "entertaining" something implies a willingness to expend time and effort in further examination of that thing. What are the criteria you would apply to decide what is and what is not worthy of the time and effort required for scientific evaluation?

.

 

[phyzmatix]

The intertubes, that congressman still makes me wince. I understand you, but this thread has moved from the OP, and towards: [PLAIN]http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/8342/internetseriousbusinessyg0.jpg

You may be taking this as fun, but some others don't seem to be in on the gag.

This is great! HAHAHAHA!

 

[Nick666]

Next time another crackpot will say he's 800 years old and never eaten in the last 700 years. Good luck with testing him .

 

[stevenb]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying precedent, while a good guide, does not convict this case Your insistence that it does is flawed scientific reasoning.

I really am done with this thread - mostly because I can't say any more without repeating myself, and I don't think anyone is going to change their opinion based on what I say.

However, I'd just like to point out that I think this above statement of yours really highlights our difference of opinion about what convicts a case in science. You seem to require 100 % proof to make a conclusion, while I feel that an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to convict.

Science proof is more like courtroom proof, as I said in a post previously, and it's interesting that you also used the metaphor. In the USA, a criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (judged by a jury of 12 peers), while civil cases require only 51% to tip the scales. The criminal model is more appropriate in science. Science can never make anyone 100% certain about any conclusion. I'm not 100% certain about anything in life, but I still claim to "know" things when the evidence brings the probability above some threshold. That threshold level depends on the nature of the idea or fact in question.

I also have a threshold level of starting evidence that justifies bringing the case to trial in the first place. Real courts have the same procedure. I feel that a rational examination of the claims and facts here do not warrant a trial. Even if I'm wrong about that, I feel more strongly that there is enough evidence to make a judgment that this is a case a fraud (or maybe mental illness combined with professional incompetence), and there is no evidence to support the claim.

Anyway, carry on and I'll read the further discussions, but I won't contribute any more to this thread because I have nothing more to offer of significance.

 

[DaveC426913]

In my experience (and use of the English language) "entertaining" something implies a willingness to expend time and effort in further examination of that thing. What are the criteria you would apply to decide what is and what is not worthy of the time and effort required for scientific evaluation?

.

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.

However, I'd just like to point out that I think this above statement of yours really highlights our difference of opinion about what convicts a case in science. You seem to require 100 % proof to make a conclusion, while I feel that an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to convict.

No, all I'm saying is that there is no such time as evidence gets closed on anything. Einstein's theory of Relativity can still be refuted. We don't say "No, the window for new evidence has closed."

Yes, I think this will fizzle and die, but jeez, there's an experiment in-progress. Having this discussion after the results are in is no skin off our nose.

I still insist that your argument really should be with the rigor of the experiment, not whether there should be one.

 

[pallidin]

I have a friend in Iraq.
His cat got squished by the treads of a 50-ton tank.
Nothing left but a blur on the road.

The cat comes alive! Walks away!

There is NO prior scientific evidence of this occurring.
There is NO evidence of this being possible.

Yet, it must be TRUE!

Purrrrrrrr...

 

[DaveC426913]

I have a friend in Iraq.
His cat got squished by the treads of a 50-ton tank.
Nothing left but a blur on the road.

The cat comes alive! Walks away!

There is NO prior scientific evidence of this occurring.
There is NO evidence of this being possible.

Yet, it must be TRUE!

Purrrrrrrr...

This argument is equivalent to flicking a booger at your opponent. I'm going to assume it's tongue-in-cheek if I'm to continue to respect you.

 

[pallidin]

Of course it's fiction.
That was my point.

 

[stevmg]

I have a friend in Iraq.
His cat got squished by the treads of a 50-ton tank.
Nothing left but a blur on the road.

The cat comes alive! Walks away!

There is NO prior scientific evidence of this occurring.
There is NO evidence of this being possible.

Yet, it must be TRUE!

Purrrrrrrr...

I guess this cat has only eight lives left.

 

[pallidin]

I guess this cat has only eight lives left.

True, and he doesn't have to eat or drink during those lives.

 

[GreatEscapist]

I feel the need to add, even after reading alllll of these posts. even though I'm just reiterating ideas.

For now, I saw he's full of crap. It's coming out of his ears. BUT, if for some god-forsaken miracle were to occur- like, he survives the next year with food or water, I will be amazed. And probably go sit in my room and cry, since all laws of medical biology would be defied.

But guess what? He hasn't proved much of a damn thing yet. Therefore, his claim holds no weight, and continues to fall under observation and skepticism.

 

[pallidin]

But guess what? He hasn't proved much of a damn thing yet. Therefore, his claim holds no weight, and continues to fall under observation and skepticism.

Exactly.

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course it's fiction.
That was my point.

I didn't say fiction. It's a naively-posed attempt at an argument, not worthy of what I heretofore believed was your ability. If you seriously think that posing a deliberate absurdity makes any statement about the case at-hand, then your ability is suspect.

Here, I'll spell it out:

D: I have an argument that X."
P: "That can't be. X is impossible, as we all know. I can as easily arque Q, which is both made up and deliberately absurd! Thus, X must be false too!"
D: "What does Q have to do with X?"
P: "Well, they're both absurd, aren't they?"
D: "Circular and self-fulfilling."

But guess what? He hasn't proved much of a damn thing yet.

Precisely. So why is everyone so in a hurry to close the book?

 

[GreatEscapist]

Dave does have a point. Circular logic sucks. No matter if you're probably right about the matter that is being argued.

Though this is most probably (and pretty much obviously) a fraud, there is that .0000000000000001 chance that it isn't. And if the crazy dude claims to do it, then by God, he can try to prove himself. But he'll probably end up failing, and we'll all roll our eyes at such an absurd claim.

Or he defies the laws of biology, and our brains shut down trying to comprehend how this is all possible.