The Importance of Open-Mindedness in Scientific Inquiry

[russ_watters]

They can lead to useful science. If we don't recognize that an unexplained phenomenon exists, how can it be studied?

That isn't what I asked. People aren't claiming that UFOlogy can lead to useful science, they are claiming it is useful science. Similarly, few people doubt that it would be interesting to know if there are earthlike planets outside the solar system, but we aren't looking because our equipment isn't capable of detecting them. Just recognizing that an unexplained phenomena exists is not on its own a reasonable basis for starting an investigation. You need a reliable scientific means to isolate and examine the phenomena. Your example of ball lightning is another good one - since it is a difficult phenomena to reliably study, not much is going on there.

The problem with things like UFOlogy (which you seem to acknowledge below) is that no reliable scientific means exists to isolate and examine the phenomena.

Note that we first learned that the world is round due to anecdotal claims of a well that casts no midday shadow on the water, one day of the year.

I'm not sure how you would define "anecdotal", but I would call that a scientific measurement - a precursor to the vertical telescope of Brahe (I think it was Brahe). I call it a scientific measurement because it does not rely on the human eye or human judgement to take the measurement - only to read the measurement.

No doubt though, the typical debunker wishes to deny anecdotal evidence that may be highly suggestive, by claiming that it is not proof or scientific evidence, when in fact no one has made such a claim.

What? What is UFOlogy supposed to be if not the scientific investigation of UFO phenomena? Didn't you just acknowledge that UFOlogy isn't science?

I'm saying that in order to be a scientific investigation, the evidence used to investigate a phenomena has to be scientific in nature. Isn't that a tautology?

 

[PIT2]

Who do you consider rational people? Aren't most UFO believers non-scientists?

I can't answer those questions. I will give an example of a situation:

Ten people individually all see, from different angles, a man coming out of a murdered persons house. They tell this to another person and also mention that the man looked exactly like the neighbour. I think the other person is rational to then conclude that a man that fits the description, probably the neighbour, did come out of the house.

Now replace the man with a giant ufo, which is seen by ten people individually from different angles. They tell this to another person and also describe the craft in detail and say it looked completely unlike anything humans could make(and as a result they think it was extra-terrestrial). I think the other person is rational to conclude that a ufo which fits the description did fly by.

Now all we have is eyewitness accounts, and according to 'the filter' this is poor evidence. Yet in the first scenario, these accounts are very useful for police to track down the killer, as well as in court to convict the man. In such a case the filter would be the opposite of useful and it would be illogical for police, as well as the judge/jury to not take the eyewitness accounts seriously.

Why would the filter be useful and logical in the second scenario, if it isn't in the first?

 

[Old Smuggler]

One appropriate response is "So what?"

That's the classic response of archconservatism, nicely illustrating my point.
Furthermore, this response is useless, and I consider it inappropriate since
it in effect denies any significance of the observation without giving any reasons why.

A much better response from a real (conservative) skeptic would be, "This must be a coincidence because <insert good reasons here>, and any model that circumvents
<these good reasons> also has to explain <independent observations underlying the
good reasons>."

But of course, when it comes to assess the significance of anomalous observations,
nothing beats hindsight.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Some people are sceptical of 9/11 being a terrorist attack.

Is that logical?

 

[Pythagorean]

Some people are sceptical of 9/11 being a terrorist attack.

Is that logical?

It doesn't matter what one thinks. Logic is the technique you used to reach your conclusion, not the conclusion itself. People can be right for the wrong reasons.

So it's not what you think, it's why you think it.

People can also be wrong using logic, but the idea is that they can generally prove whether they're wrong or right (if it's logical enough, then it's easier to design an experiment to test it) and move on.

 

[Old Smuggler]

This equation implies that the fundamental physical constants vary over cosmological time scales: e.g., the SI base units of time (the second), of length (the meter), and Newton's gravitational constant.

Taken in isolation, the equation just describes an observational fact. Attempting to implement the equation into a wider setting or theory is a different cup of tea.
The question is if this equation represents something potentially significant or if it
represents only a coincidence.

That is an interesting proposition that deserves to be carefully examined. If it is presented in that way (e.g., as a proposal for further investigation), then a "real skeptic" (e.g., a scientist) should react positively. If however this is presented as a claim/conclusion, then a "real skeptic" should react by pointing out (directly or indirectly) that it is premature to be making claims/conclusions at this stage of your investigation.

The equation was presented as representing an observational fact, nothing more.
The "real skeptic" would be asked for an assesment of the significance of this
observation as basis for further investigation.

In this particular case for example, all spinning and orbiting bodies in the universe should also obey this equation if it is really true (e.g., not just a coincidence) for the Earth's moon. Therefore, a claim/conclusion like this should at least be accompanied by a thorough analysis of the orbits of all planets and moons in our solar system, and of the observed spin-down rates of all known millisecond binary pulsars (this data is readily available in several online catalogs) before it is presented as a claim/conclusion.

Of course the equation should be significant for orbits of other bodies than the Moon,
if it represents something more than just a coincidence. However, spin-down rates
of millisecond pulsars is another matter, since by extrapolation, the equation should apply only to orbits. For spinning bodies, extrapolation of the equation would be more risky. Overgeneralizing is not a good thing.

A good starting point for such an investigation would be to review this article: J.P. Uzan, The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 75, April 2003, pp. 403-455.

Yes, I am aware of this paper. For LLR data and their interpretation, see

J. Chapront, M. Chapront-Touze and G. Francou, Astron. & Astrophys. 387, 700 (2002).

 

[Hurkyl]

Furthermore, this response is useless, and I consider it inappropriate since it in effect denies any significance of the observation without giving any reasons why.

Contrary to popular belief, facts do not speak for themselves. Your post provided absolutely no reason why one would be interested in this fact, or what its implications might be. You never even raised the issue of whether the fact is interesting or significant. Asking, "so what?" cannot deny anything -- you haven't said anything that can be confirmed or denied!^* "So what?" is exactly the question that prompts you to supply that missing information.*: except for the veracity of the fact, which I will assume for the sake of argument and because I'm too lazy to check it myself)

 

[BillJx]

To me that's what skepticism is. Critical thinking. It doesn't imply rejection of current scientific explanations. It does imply an understanding that they are "current" explanations. And to my way of thinking, at least, it implies that contrarian explanations are unlikely to be correct because, by definition, they are doubted by the people best trained to judge. In other words, to me, skepticism and logic are the same.

 

[Aether]

Even well-documented observations that do not fit easily into a preconceived notion of how the world should work, may be rationalized away or just neglected. One example of this is the observed mean acceleration {\dot n} of the Moon; from lunar laser ranging experiments this has the value of about -13.8 arcseconds/(century)^2. Furthermore, the mean motion of the Moon n is about .549 arcseconds/s.

Assuming that these numbers accurately reflect well-documented observations of LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging) measurements, and that you don't mean to suggest that they "do not fit easily into a preconceived notion of how the world should work" or that anyone has "rationalized away or just neglected" them; then it must be this statement of yours that you are saying does "not fit easily into a preconceived notion of how the world should work", and it must be this statement of yours that you are saying has been "rationalized away or just neglected":

Now the interesting part is that to within one standard deviation, {\dot n}=-Hn, where H is the Hubble parameter

Right?

...Taken in isolation, the equation just describes an observational fact. Attempting to implement the equation into a wider setting or theory is a different cup of tea...The equation was presented as representing an observational fact, nothing more.

Wrong. This equation describes a line extending from a time several billion years in the past when the Moon was first formed to a time several billion years in the future when the Sun will burn out. The LLR observations that you have presented so far might represent, at most, one single point on this line. If you are claiming that this line is a plausible one, then please show a plot of this line over the life-span of the Moon vs. the mainstream scientific estimate of what this line should actually be (e.g., where the total angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is conserved over the time period).

 

[Old Smuggler]

Contrary to popular belief, facts do not speak for themselves.

That's right. However, some facts are highly suggestive. This is one of them. See below.

Your post provided absolutely no reason why one would be interested in this fact, or what its implications might be.

Observational facts do not come with tailored explanations. I was merely interested in how a skeptic would react to a surprising and inconvenient fact. The fact is surprising
since according to standard theory, the mean acceleration of the Moon consists of two
main parts, namely 1) secular effects of planetary perturbations on the Earth-Moon system, 2) tidal friction. There is no a priori reason why the natural time scales associated with any of these mechanisms should have anything to do with the Hubble time. Yet, as standard theory will have us to believe, by an incredible coincidence, these mechanisms conspire to relate the mean acceleration of the Moon to its mean motion via the Hubble
parameter! This suggests that cosmology somehow is relevant in the Solar system,
contrary to predictions from standard theory. Moreover, since no explanation can be made of this within standard theory, this fact is inconvenient, and easy to dismiss without justification.

You never even raised the issue of whether the fact is interesting or significant.

But that's what I asked for, a real skeptic's reaction to and assessment of this fact. Of course I also assumed that this skeptic knows astrophysics so well that it would be
unnecessary to point out why the fact is surprising and unconvenient.

Asking, "so what?" cannot deny anything -- you haven't said anything that can be confirmed or denied!^* "So what?" is exactly the question that prompts you to supply that missing information.

In my opinion "so what?" is not a real, but a rethorical question; having an arrogant tone
and an air of dismissal about it. Therefore it is inappropriate and counterproductive as
part of a constructive discussion. Please, do not use such questions as part of your discussion style.

To repeat myself, all I did was to point to a surprising observational fact and ask how a real skeptic would react to it. It was not my intention to offer an "explanation" of the fact. But to take the fact seriously, you seem to suggest that some explanation should be offered. Which leads to another question; which kind of "explanation" would be necessary for you (or any skeptic) to take the fact seriously?

*: except for the veracity of the fact, which I will assume for the sake of argument and because I'm too lazy to check it myself)

The Chapront et. al. paper I referred to in an earlier post has all the necessary information.
Please check it out.

 

[StuMyers]

Is there ANY reason to speculate that it's anything more than a coincidence? There's not a causal reason for every correlation in the universe. Today, the moon and sun appear to be the same size from the surface of the Earth. Is there some law of nature that dictates that this must be so? No.

 

[Maxwells Demon]

It all depends on having the right amount of scepticism. Have too much and you might miss something great, have too little and you might be wrong. It's a very fine balance that only few master perfectly, I think.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It doesn't matter what one thinks. Logic is the technique you used to reach your conclusion, not the conclusion itself. People can be right for the wrong reasons.

So it's not what you think, it's why you think it.

People can also be wrong using logic, but the idea is that they can generally prove whether they're wrong or right (if it's logical enough, then it's easier to design an experiment to test it) and move on.

Right, and have you seen the arguments that people use to argue their conspiracy theories?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The off-topic discussion was moved to GD
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1285530#post1285530

 

[Pythagorean]

Right, and have you seen the arguments that people use to argue their conspiracy theories?

no, when I was in high school, and I was interested in conspiracy theories, I wasn't interested in logical arguments or supporting facts. I was interested in 'facts' that were more appealing to pathos than logos.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It's healthy to be skeptical until proven otherwise. Especially for claims that are outside the realm of our body of knowledge. That's why we have the scientific method.

Epsilon: I've done significant research into the 9/11 conspiracies and none of them are scientific. They are the antithesis of research. Instead of experts in relevant fields, they get an expert in testing water. Besides, these theories have been debunked a multitude of times already.

 

[rahuldandekar]

Suppose 'something' has not been proven to be true, but nevertheless every piece of information with regard to that 'something' (for example eyewitness accounts) suggest that the 'something' IS true.

Is it logical to then be skeptical to the point where one still thinks its more plausible that the 'something' is not what the information indicates it to be, but that it is actually something else that does not match the information, but which has been proven to exist?

I don't think so. True scientific skeptics always proceed with reason. If something does not match the information, it cannot be an explanation. But if something does, and has been proven to exist, and explains the same phenomenon as an unproven hypothesis, it's more likely to be valid. Eg. Sleep Paralysis in case of alien abductions.

I think logic is essential to skepticism, and theories which are logically inconsistent, or experimentally disproved, cannot be taken to be true. You are free to believe in them, but don't take them as the truth.

It's easy to test theories in physics (comparitively). In other fields there enter matters of interpretation, cause and effect, etc. I don't think that in such matters there is any better way to truth than controlled double-blind tests (if possible).

Then again, one may question the validity of the scientific method itself, as a path to "truth". Best left to philosophy...

 

[BoredNL]

Yes, scientific progress requires not only logic but also imagination and creativity. People are built in such a way that those with a proclivity for one often lack a proclivity for the other. Few are blessed with a good balance of both. Someone here has a good signature about how all progress depends on the unreasonable man because the reasonable man is not the one who tries to change the world.

For what reason would a reasonable man not reason to create reason?

I imagine he would.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Is it always logical to be skeptical of something?

I am skeptical of my own judgment, and not of anything else.

 

[BoredNL]

I am skeptical of my own judgment, and not of anything else.

If that is a literal statement, I would be too if I were you.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If that is a literal statement, I would be too if I were you.

What are you skeptical of, and why?

 

[Moridin]

Skepticism of unsupported claims or claims that contradict established evidence is always an interesting approach, and through history, as shown to be a valuable position. It is also one of the foundations of science.

 

[BoredNL]

What are you skeptical of, and why?

I am skeptical of every claim that is either not obvious or that I think may only seem obvious, but more so towards some claims than others. I go by the importance of the matter and the apparent irrationality of a claim to decide what to be most skeptical about. I am also highly skeptical of my own logic and reasoning, because that is at the base of all my thoughts which guides me in my judgment of everything else.

I don't see how you could make the claim that you are only skeptical of yourself and nothing else. You must have thoughts about other things that brought you to be skeptical about yourself, and by being skeptical of yourself you are being skeptical of those things that you think about.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am skeptical of every claim that is either not obvious or that I think may only seem obvious, but more so towards some claims than others. I go by the importance of the matter and the apparent irrationality of a claim to decide what to be most skeptical about. I am also highly skeptical of my own logic and reasoning, because that is at the base of all my thoughts which guides me in my judgment of everything else.

This doesn't really let me know what you are skeptical of. Can you give me an example? Do you have any doubts as to the shape of the earth? Was there a world-wide flood?

 

[BoredNL]

This doesn't really let me know what you are skeptical of. Can you give me an example? Do you have any doubts as to the shape of the earth? Was there a world-wide flood?

This is only a partial list, but here you go. I'm skeptical of alternative medicines, psychiatry, political documentaries, rhetorical documentaries in general, religion, common perceptions amongst others in society dealing with things from sexuality, relationships, family, patriotism, etc, politics and policy (especially since the Bush era), and current econonics (including advertising, business practices, and the common teachings that influence society on such things). I'm pretty much skeptical about anything and everything, but I am more serious about some than others, as I've said.

I'm curious. What are you skeptical of?

-Phil

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm pretty much skeptical about anything and everything, but I am more serious about some than others, as I've said.

In that case, is it possible that in fact it is your own judgment that you are skeptical of.

I'm curious. What are you skeptical of?

My own judgment. If you asked me if the Earth was round, I would say yes. And if you asked me if I was sure, I would say no. I always answer that one "no".

 

[BoredNL]

In that case, is it possible that in fact it is your own judgment that you are skeptical of.My own judgment. If you asked me if the Earth was round, I would say yes. And if you asked me if I was sure, I would say no. I always answer that one "no".

Of course I am skeptical of my own judgement, but why would I say I am only skeptical of that? It is possible for someone to be skeptical of others without being skeptical of themselves, but I doubt they would be a very good skeptic. Just because you would answer "no" to "are you sure?" questions, it doesn't mean that you aren't skeptical of the outside world in addition to your own. That's proof that you are skeptical of more than your own judgement. Skepticism isn't disbelief, it's the realization that you cannot know anything to be 100% true, whether it is your judgment or those things you make judgment on. If someone said, "The world is round," and someone asked if you agreed. I'm willing to bet it would be the same thing. You'd answer "yes," but then when the person questioning you asked, "Are you sure that person is right?" What would you answer? I'm guessing "no," but that would be skepticism of the other person's judgment, not your own.

 

[Lori Cordini]

"I't's always easy to be skeptical until it happens to you!"

 

[BoredNL]

lol :P

Actually, I love when someone can pick apart an argument of mine. I benefit from it if it is true.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I agree. I love when people point out my errors. I think I'm one of the few that never feels "assaulted" and "cornered" when confronted about being wrong. I don't get defensive, I just listen to what they have to say, see if it has merit, and if it does and shows that I'm wrong I thank them and accept it.