4 ms·

And the attitude being described above seems to me to border on religious "just trust us" dogma. I mean, one of the big things that's supposed to distinguish re

And the attitude being described above seems to me to border on religious "just trust us" dogma. I mean, one of the big things that's supposed to distinguish real science from pseudoscience and such is the ability to fairly easily and routinely reproduce its results. And if that's not happening, and in fact it's being actively discouraged, then that's a real problem! "In fact, many of the initial 50 papers have been confirmed by other groups, as some of the RP:CB’s critics have pointed out." I don't know that I would be willing to take a statement like that at face value. I once read of a scientist who claimed that there was absolutely no need to try and independently reproduce his work, since it was being routinely reproduced in college labs everywhere as part of other experiments - or something like that. To me that meant that it should then be trivial to reproduce these results when attempted by trained professionals who were specifically trying to do that very thing. So why the reluctance to allow that to happen?

timr 8y ago
"And the attitude being described above seems to me to border on religious "just trust us" dogma. I mean, one of the big things that's supposed to distinguish real science from pseudoscience and such is the ability to fairly easily and routinely reproduce its results." Nowhere is it written that you should be able to "easily and routinely" reproduce a scientific result. It's damned hard for skilled scientists to reproduce most scientific results. And yes, it's utterly impossible for amateurs. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it's the truth. There are many things in life that you routinely accept on authority: When you fly in a plane, that it isn't going to crash into the earth. When you turn on the tap, that clean, safe water comes out. When you go to your doctor, that she is prescribing you medication that will help you, not hurt you. When you vaccinate your children, that you are protecting them from horrible diseases. I'm sorry that it bothers you, but "science" is just one more thing in the world that you're going to have to accept, because nobody -- scientist or otherwise -- can independently verify all of human knowledge. If it makes you feel better, you can look around, realize that we're no starving from famine, or dying from minor cuts, or poisoning ourselves with lead, or dying of Polio or Smallpox, and you can try to convince yourself that in the long run, the method works. Because that's the argument you're missing. You don't have to take my word for it, or anyone else's. It's a system. The system works. You just don't fully understand why it works, and you're not willing to read when a group of scientists write a long article that tries to explain it to you. Because you'd rather believe that explanation is "dogma". "I don't know that I would be willing to take a statement like that at face value." Nobody is stopping you from digging into it. If you're really so bothered by it, I encourage you to follow up. "So why the reluctance to allow that to happen?" There is no reluctance, whatsoever. Nobody is trying to stop these people. They're just beginning to realize that their approach is a lot damned harder than they originally expected, and those of us who knew it would be are pointing it out.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"If it makes you feel better, you can look around, realize that we're no starving from famine, or dying from minor cuts, or poisoning ourselves with lead, or dying of Polio or Smallpox, and you can try to convince yourself that in the long run, the method works." Don't you have any more recent examples? Perhaps people used to be doing reproducible science but this got lost somewhere along the way, that's why all your examples are decades old.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  I understand where you're coming from here so I don't want to belabor the point, but what you're actually describing is more of a faith-based system rather than one based on science! And I for one am simply no longer willing to take most of what (for example) shows up in the peer-reviewed literature these days based primarily on faith, and I haven't been for several decades now. The fact that you and so many others seem so readily willing to do so makes me seriously question your critical thinking skills. And I don't blindly trust that "the system works" really at all to the extent that's so it often claimed to. An awful lot of what gets published these days tends to just not hold up to close scrutiny, and often what appears to be groundbreaking research may just kind of up and disappear with no further trace soon enough, without ever directly or even indirectly leading to a practical new product or a new drug or whatever. I understand that this kind of thing is going to happen, and it may happen quite a bit if you're doing really groundbreaking stuff, but in general this should probably be more the exception than the rule. But yes, I do understand how the method works, and how the system that's supposedly based on that method works (when it actually does work), and also when it doesn't work and why, and what the motivations might be to try and pretend that it works even in situations when it actually doesn't. And rather than blindly defend it, maybe you try a bit harder to understand how it actually "works", too.

timr 8y ago

"And the attitude being described above seems to me to border on religious "just trust us" dogma. I mean, one of the big things that's supposed to distinguish real science from pseudoscience and such is the ability to fairly easily and routinely reproduce its results." Nowhere is it written that you should be able to "easily and routinely" reproduce a scientific result. It's damned hard for skilled scientists to reproduce most scientific results. And yes, it's utterly impossible for amateurs. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it's the truth. There are many things in life that you routinely accept on authority: When you fly in a plane, that it isn't going to crash into the earth. When you turn on the tap, that clean, safe water comes out. When you go to your doctor, that she is prescribing you medication that will help you, not hurt you. When you vaccinate your children, that you are protecting them from horrible diseases. I'm sorry that it bothers you, but "science" is just one more thing in the world that you're going to have to accept, because nobody -- scientist or otherwise -- can independently verify all of human knowledge. If it makes you feel better, you can look around, realize that we're no starving from famine, or dying from minor cuts, or poisoning ourselves with lead, or dying of Polio or Smallpox, and you can try to convince yourself that in the long run, the method works. Because that's the argument you're missing. You don't have to take my word for it, or anyone else's. It's a system. The system works. You just don't fully understand why it works, and you're not willing to read when a group of scientists write a long article that tries to explain it to you. Because you'd rather believe that explanation is "dogma". "I don't know that I would be willing to take a statement like that at face value." Nobody is stopping you from digging into it. If you're really so bothered by it, I encourage you to follow up. "So why the reluctance to allow that to happen?" There is no reluctance, whatsoever. Nobody is trying to stop these people. They're just beginning to realize that their approach is a lot damned harder than they originally expected, and those of us who knew it would be are pointing it out.

nonbel 8y ago
>"If it makes you feel better, you can look around, realize that we're no starving from famine, or dying from minor cuts, or poisoning ourselves with lead, or dying of Polio or Smallpox, and you can try to convince yourself that in the long run, the method works." Don't you have any more recent examples? Perhaps people used to be doing reproducible science but this got lost somewhere along the way, that's why all your examples are decades old.
southern_cross 8y ago
I understand where you're coming from here so I don't want to belabor the point, but what you're actually describing is more of a faith-based system rather than one based on science! And I for one am simply no longer willing to take most of what (for example) shows up in the peer-reviewed literature these days based primarily on faith, and I haven't been for several decades now. The fact that you and so many others seem so readily willing to do so makes me seriously question your critical thinking skills. And I don't blindly trust that "the system works" really at all to the extent that's so it often claimed to. An awful lot of what gets published these days tends to just not hold up to close scrutiny, and often what appears to be groundbreaking research may just kind of up and disappear with no further trace soon enough, without ever directly or even indirectly leading to a practical new product or a new drug or whatever. I understand that this kind of thing is going to happen, and it may happen quite a bit if you're doing really groundbreaking stuff, but in general this should probably be more the exception than the rule. But yes, I do understand how the method works, and how the system that's supposedly based on that method works (when it actually does work), and also when it doesn't work and why, and what the motivations might be to try and pretend that it works even in situations when it actually doesn't. And rather than blindly defend it, maybe you try a bit harder to understand how it actually "works", too.