6 ms·

What they really mean is "no scientific evidence. If Crazy Carl says that aliens abducted his prize turnip, there is still no scientific evidence of aliens.

roenxi 3y ago
1. That might rule out psychology as a branch of science. 2. This gets back to the point Scott is making - now define "scientific evidence". For any reasonable definition of scientific evidence, there is a lot of evidence for almost everything. I can find scientific evidence for aliens if I want to - to a terribly low standard, true enough - although what Scott picked on was homeopathy which works a bit better. People underestimate lies, damn lies and statistics. There are facts that back up any worldview, no matter how insane. Carl could find scientific evidence to back up his theory. There'll be anomalous weather station readings, weird sounds, academics papers published by crazy academics that kinda support him. We've all met monomaniacal people; they aren't shy of finding scientific evidence for their case. Still bunk though.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  It also rules out game theory as a science. Which might be fine if you think that math isn't a science, but then you have to resort to physical experiments to collect scientific evidence that 100 + 2 is indeed 102.
  - awwaiid 3y ago
    I think they call that chemistry and it is indeed an important part.
  - Almondsetat 3y ago
    100 + 2 doesn't exist in reality so...
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > For any reasonable definition of scientific evidence, there is a lot of evidence for almost everything. Slight tangent, but I've seen a similar thing when trying to decide which religion, if any, is true: Every one I looked at had at least a few very intelligent, seemingly rational adherents. It seems like there's a subjective element to what evidence each person finds persuasive.
times_trw 3y ago
[dead]
remram 3y ago
What if Crazy Carl has ever published a scientific paper? Does it count? Does the paper need to specifically be about turnips? Or about aliens? It's not like there is a "scientist" card that some people carry and some don't... and it's not like none of the hypothetical card-carrying scientists would ever have crazy opinions.
- kortilla 3y ago
  No, scientific publications don’t change it unless those publications are about the claim. A publications doesn’t give you a free pass from scrutiny.
  - remram 3y ago
    Publishing a claim doesn't make it the scientific truth. Case in point, the many thousands of published studies about ESP.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      What do you mean here by "scientific truth"? Sorry to seem pedantic, but I think it matters here since we're talking about specific meanings of terms.
      - remram 3y ago
        That is my point, yes. I am pointing out that there is no objective bar for a claim to be "scientific".
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  It's not whether he has some magical "scientist" card, it's whether he ran an experiment. Imagine Carl ran an experiment where he put a sign in front of various groups of turnips asking for things like aliens, Bigfoot, or faeries to take the turnips. After running this experiment, only the turnips with signs associated to aliens were taken. In this scenario, Carl would have some scientific evidence suggesting aliens took his turnips. It'd be weak evidence that likely wouldn't be replicated, but still evidence.
throwitaway222 3y ago
Well it is scientific evidence, just weak. "1 person had their prize turnip abducted by aliens". Most people are waiting for 100 people to have their prize turnips to be abducted before they believe.
- hnfong 3y ago
  The problem with your argument is that there are already hundreds if not thousands of alien abduction reports. (They probably didn't have turnips though, I hope that wasn't the point.) The problem here isn't whether this is scientific evidence, but that the evidence isn't sufficient for scientists to form a reasonable hypothesis about what gives rise to the phenomenon (which could be (a) aliens are real, (b) some form of mass hallucination, (c) some form of synchronized fraudulent claim, (d) etc. etc. ). I speculate that if somebody actually does a "literature review" of abduction reports they could pick out some signals to form some hypothesis, but presumably scientists have better things to risk their careers over.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  But crazy carl saying his prize turnip was stolen by aliens ISN'T evidence that his prize turnip was stolen by aliens, it's evidence that crazy carl BELIEVES/SAYS his prize turnip was stolen by aliens.

roenxi 3y ago

1. That might rule out psychology as a branch of science. 2. This gets back to the point Scott is making - now define "scientific evidence". For any reasonable definition of scientific evidence, there is a lot of evidence for almost everything. I can find scientific evidence for aliens if I want to - to a terribly low standard, true enough - although what Scott picked on was homeopathy which works a bit better. People underestimate lies, damn lies and statistics. There are facts that back up any worldview, no matter how insane. Carl could find scientific evidence to back up his theory. There'll be anomalous weather station readings, weird sounds, academics papers published by crazy academics that kinda support him. We've all met monomaniacal people; they aren't shy of finding scientific evidence for their case. Still bunk though.

wongarsu 3y ago
It also rules out game theory as a science. Which might be fine if you think that math isn't a science, but then you have to resort to physical experiments to collect scientific evidence that 100 + 2 is indeed 102.
- awwaiid 3y ago
  I think they call that chemistry and it is indeed an important part.
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  100 + 2 doesn't exist in reality so...
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> For any reasonable definition of scientific evidence, there is a lot of evidence for almost everything. Slight tangent, but I've seen a similar thing when trying to decide which religion, if any, is true: Every one I looked at had at least a few very intelligent, seemingly rational adherents. It seems like there's a subjective element to what evidence each person finds persuasive.

times_trw 3y ago

[dead]

remram 3y ago

What if Crazy Carl has ever published a scientific paper? Does it count? Does the paper need to specifically be about turnips? Or about aliens? It's not like there is a "scientist" card that some people carry and some don't... and it's not like none of the hypothetical card-carrying scientists would ever have crazy opinions.

kortilla 3y ago
No, scientific publications don’t change it unless those publications are about the claim. A publications doesn’t give you a free pass from scrutiny.
- remram 3y ago
  Publishing a claim doesn't make it the scientific truth. Case in point, the many thousands of published studies about ESP.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    What do you mean here by "scientific truth"? Sorry to seem pedantic, but I think it matters here since we're talking about specific meanings of terms.
    - remram 3y ago
      That is my point, yes. I am pointing out that there is no objective bar for a claim to be "scientific".
boomboomsubban 3y ago
It's not whether he has some magical "scientist" card, it's whether he ran an experiment. Imagine Carl ran an experiment where he put a sign in front of various groups of turnips asking for things like aliens, Bigfoot, or faeries to take the turnips. After running this experiment, only the turnips with signs associated to aliens were taken. In this scenario, Carl would have some scientific evidence suggesting aliens took his turnips. It'd be weak evidence that likely wouldn't be replicated, but still evidence.

throwitaway222 3y ago

Well it is scientific evidence, just weak. "1 person had their prize turnip abducted by aliens". Most people are waiting for 100 people to have their prize turnips to be abducted before they believe.

hnfong 3y ago
The problem with your argument is that there are already hundreds if not thousands of alien abduction reports. (They probably didn't have turnips though, I hope that wasn't the point.) The problem here isn't whether this is scientific evidence, but that the evidence isn't sufficient for scientists to form a reasonable hypothesis about what gives rise to the phenomenon (which could be (a) aliens are real, (b) some form of mass hallucination, (c) some form of synchronized fraudulent claim, (d) etc. etc. ). I speculate that if somebody actually does a "literature review" of abduction reports they could pick out some signals to form some hypothesis, but presumably scientists have better things to risk their careers over.
mrguyorama 3y ago
But crazy carl saying his prize turnip was stolen by aliens ISN'T evidence that his prize turnip was stolen by aliens, it's evidence that crazy carl BELIEVES/SAYS his prize turnip was stolen by aliens.