Originally Posted by GilesC
Now, the skeptics may say "you have no proof" and "it can't be measured". You could easily retort by pointing out that science has no proof for a lot of it's "theories" yet they still call it science and they still proceed to experiment with it, believing it to be the truth because they have seen "some" evidence to suggest it may be true.
|
Excellent points. There is a problem with the language used by LOA propnents (and other more esoteric subjects) in that their use of that term "scientific" is frequently loose and sloppy. Scientific proof is the end result of the scientific method. You cannot have the latter in the absence of the former.
On the other hand, the "scientific" community is equally guilty of using sloppy language which often takes the form of over stated generalizations in support of what should be very tightly focused conclusions. I think in large part this is because the scientific community is a bit clique-ish. Researchers deal mainly with other researchers and largely with researchers in their own particular area of knowledge. They use their own jargon and "geek-speak" which, to them, makes perfectly good sense. It is well understood within the context of their respective areas of expertise.
But then they use the same language when attempting to discuss their work with non-specialists who do not have the benefit of all that professional context to put things in. Among their own they can use general language to refer to something very specific, and other specialists implicitly understand this and translate those words in their heads so that they accurately reflect what was intended. We non-specialists don't have that luxury. We hear general language and we apply it in broad, general terms and it often makes for very wrong conclusions.
That's why someone like Carl Sagan is so effective as a communicator to the masses. Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, he went to great pains to simplify language and yet retain the required precision so that a non-specialist clearly understood what he intended to communicate.
Here's an example I personally love. Sasquatch, or for those who may not be familiar with that term (if there is such a person,) Bigfoot. It is common to hear sceptics use phrases such as, "There is absolutely NO
scientific evidence for the existence of Sasquatch." Or they might say, "There is absolutely NO
hard evidence for the existence of Sasquatch."
In either case they are tossing a broad generality around which, to the layman, makes the specialist appear to be either deliberately disingenuous or monumentally uninformed. We laymen look at that statement and say to ourselves, "Wait a minute... We've got eye witness reports. We've got a growing number of films of alleged creatures (including the famous Patterson film.) We have countless footprints and plaster castings of footprints. We have recordings of suspected vocalizations. We've got consistent, detailed oral traditions going back hundreds of years from many different Native America tribes scattered all throughout North, Central and South America, which closely match contemporary reports. And this Egghead over here tells us there is NO evidence. Is he that dishonest, or just that uninformed about all this evidence?"
To the specialist, "hard evidence" or "scientific evidence" is evidence that can be repeatedly reproduced, preferably from several different perspectives so as to check its accuracy. If you can't reproduce it and check it again and again it doesn't meet the standards of being "scientific". It's not that there's no evidence. It isn't even the case that there is no compelling, highly suggestive evidence. It's just that you can't get that Sasquatch to walk by several different people with video cameras on command at different times, in different places, from different angles so that video evidence can be duplicated, compared and evaluated to form firm conclusions.
A specialist would intuitively understand that is what was meant. But to the rest of us it sounds like the Egghead is denying the fact that there is any tangible evidence at all. And sometimes they are, but usually the people doing that are the debunkers whose only joy in life seems to be arguing and tearing something down regardless of the facts. That's not a true sceptic, that's a professional nay-sayer. A true sceptic is more of an agnostic, unwilling to accept that something does in fact exist as claimed, but very willing to honestly put claims to the test wherever possible and then evaluate the results to draw conclusions.
The LOA and Sasquatch probably have much in common. Neither has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of scientific standards, but both have a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting they exist. Those who promote LOA, especially if they are engaged in earning their living by championing it, should make an effort to either stop misusing that term "scientifically proved", or else they should start working to come up with acceptable proof. They should be honest and clear and stop using marketing tactics masquerading as scientific evidence.
And those who are sceptical should also clean up their language and stop applying broad generalizations when in fact very specific, highly focused language should be used. If they are going to speak to non-specialists on the subject they need to be up front and clear that there is evidence but it is simply not amenable at this time to scientific inquiry. Claiming there is "no evidence" for LOA falls flat in the face of millions of people who have either experienced it for themselves or watched it in operation in the lives of others.
Both camps could do much to clean up unnecessary confusion.
Evidence
Linear Mode
