You’ve been provided with links to an article from a credible source, a paper, and a video, and you say you don’t believe any of it. The physics of this effect are both well known and easily demonstrated. What level of evidence is required in your mind?
I'm saying, if someone writes an article and it is published, should we believe it?
You're saying that I should use tools to replicate the experiment. Great - this is what we should do before we accept something as true. Otherwise, we are in the realms of 'belief'.
So, do you believe this story? And did you do due diligence, and confirm with the tools that it is true? Or did you skip that bit and believe it despite the fact that NO evidence is presented at all? Be honest when you answer please!
Stepping back a bit, I'm not saying anything so drastic. I certainly don't see why I'm being downvoted. I'm really talking about applying the scientific method personally. I'm saying don't accept articles, videos by default, without even critically reading what is being presented. I really think its pretty obvious stuff, tbh!
So do I understand you correctly that you’re categorically excluding any kind of experimental evidence, no matter how well controlled or rigorous? That, so long as there is no breach of the source of the technique, you can’t be convinced?
I understand that any one person’s anecdotes are weak evidence, but your comments are going much further and claiming that such tests can never be evidence, even though much scientific knowledge is similarly obtained.
> "Evidence" is anything that should cause you to update your beliefs.
No, this is too broad. We are talking about testing scientific theories, not just updating a random person's beliefs. "Evidence" is what you compare theoretical predictions with to test theories.
> The simulations show that a certain possible phenomenon is consistent with known physics when this was not known before
More or less, yes.
> and therefore they raise the likelihood that the phenomenon exists.
No, this is a non sequitur. Knowing that a phenomenon is consistent with the laws of physics tells you nothing about whether that phenomenon actually exists. The set of phenomena that actually exist is too tiny compared to the set of phenomena that are consistent with the laws of physics for knowing something is a member of the latter to give any useful information about the former.
Where is all this hard evidence? All I've ever seen are theories and computer models, many of which end up wrong. If I'm wrong, it should be easy for someone to provide the evidence.
If you're not convinced, you should look in to the evidence and the deductions that lead to what is now presented as fact. Very few popular presentations cover the reasons behind the wacky stuff scientists say, which is to blame for you evaluating that stuff on the basis of whether it rings true - because you've been given no other way to evaluate it.
There's no need to get so worked up. But yes, you have to provide more evidence than just a claim, expect everyone to assume that it's somehow logically congruent, and that all skeptics are stupid.
> If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high.
For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis:
- Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water;
- Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor.
The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
I think we should demand more. We are being presented science right? We should be able to recognise that this article and the videos, etc are just presenting a claim. They are not providing any evidence. This is just a story.
I'd settle for regular evidence: a nice paper from a reputable lab that replicates the findings of the original team. Extraordinary evidence would be required for non standard model physics or aliens or something like that.
That's a tricky one. Yes, it doesn't prove anything. But if that same person would show you a battery and an electric light and the fact that the one can power the other you'd have no qualms about saying that that video is real and proof of the existence of electricity because you've already accepted that as a fact and any evidence that confirms it can safely be added to the huge pile that already exists.
But let's just for the moment go back 112 years when your average laboratory was less well equipped than today's lab of mid sized university and people were doing groundbreaking research all over the place. Including superconduction. So we are all less likely to believe the 'underdog citizens' because anything they can do the labs can do that much better. But the underdog citizens apparently excel at marketing themselves, rather than that they excel at science and replication is something they are sometimes quite good at (Nile Red for instance is in that category). So as long as they aren't doing original science I think we maybe should lump them into the 'preponderance of evidence' class and if enough of those unknown individuals all report consistent results then it may count for something, more so if you know one of them yourself and are allowed to inspect the results. But for a global audience it shouldn't hold as much weight as a replication by a well known university with a good reputation, especially if they supply samples for others to test. (Because I think with this substance testing it properly is a lot easier (while still challenging) than manufacturing it properly.)
"Evidence" is anything that should cause you to update your beliefs. The simulations show that a certain possible phenomenon is consistent with known physics when this was not known before, and therefore they raise the likelihood that the phenomenon exists.
If you are to just claim that someone made something up, you must yourself raise the standard and provide a scientific or otherwise evidential source. And Vice ain't it.
reply