James Randi Love Thread

[heliocentric]

No. Randi does not choose the people he wants. He has a challenge that anyone can apply for.

And he cherry picks from the applicants, how is that not choosing the people he wants?

Who are the people that Randi has rejected from taking the test? The only one I have heard of was a breatharian and that caused a debate.

huh? the guy rejects people on a weekly basis, which to be fair to him (or any other organisation like his) he has to do due to the sheer number of applicants.

Please provide me with some more detail regarding Randi changing the protocols.

Im citing 'the field' - by Lynne McTaggart. The book contains interviews with people whove experimented with Randi.

So what if he is not a "parapsychologist"? Do you need these qualifications to be able to design a test?

Well its a tricky one, its hard to know exactly what one should be versed in to run experiments of this kind.
Ideally id like to see a wide range of people within parapsychology, beavioural psychology, perhaps a few people well read on NLP and cold reading as well.
Im certainly not against a former magician being in the mix someone to spot any slights of hand, i do find a magician being the sole driving force of a parapsychology experiment rather worrying though.

I want to see where he has done this before. As far as I know, once the protocol is agreed upon it does not change.

see above.

Also bear in mind that Randi offers to not be at the test or even know when it is taking place.

Im not sure how long thats been the case to be honest. certainly going by past experiments thats certainly not true.

A test run by PEAR maybe. Do you really think that many people would apply for the James Randi $10 Challenge? I don't think many would.

I think alot of people would actually, many people put them self up for testing all the time without the need for a pot at gold at waiting at the end of the experiment.

 

[grover]

Which is exactly my complaint about people like Schwartz, PEAR, SAIC, SRI, ect.

What do you mean? SAIC and SRI are respected Corporations that are contracted by the government all the time. Just like any Corporation their sole purpose of existence is to make money. Are you saying they put their credibility and financial existence on the line to prove that psi is real? That's insane. When you make comments like this you might as well just say "I don't believe any results that conflict with my beliefs." (i.e., it's no different than a Christian that discounts all evidence that supports evolution).

 

[shaman_]

What do you mean? SAIC and SRI are respected Corporations that are contracted by the government all the time. Just like any Corporation their sole purpose of existence is to make money. Are you saying they put their credibility and financial existence on the line to prove that psi is real? That's insane.

And you can't see how finding some proof for psi might keep them in business?

All I was trying to say was that I am sceptical of the results when some of these organisations (I gave more examples than those two) set out to test psi. Getting results is in their best interest. I don't think they would influence any results on purpse though. I am just saying that I am sceptical.

I do not ignore anything they publish though. This is no different to your scepticism towards anything that csicop or Randi would say. I am assuming that you wouldn't completely discard anything written by sceptics.

I have read of some of the poor test protocols that SAIC and SRI have used though. SRI declared Geller a gifted psychic!

When you make comments like this you might as well just say "I don't believe any results that conflict with my beliefs." (i.e., it's no different than a Christian that discounts all evidence that supports evolution).

I could say the same about your attacks on Randi.

We have been over this evolution thing several times and I have pointed out why it is a false analogy.

I have also already explained to you before that I think that these abilities are perhaps possible but the evidence is far from compelling at the moment. There may be something there (small and unreliable) or there may be experimenter bias.

 

[shaman_]

And he cherry picks from the applicants, how is that not choosing the people he wants?

huh? the guy rejects people on a weekly basis, which to be fair to him (or any other organisation like his) he has to do due to the sheer number of applicants..

I was not aware that he was rejecting applicants due to the numbers (prior to the rule change this year).

If there are so many perhaps you could find a couple of examples? I am asking you to back up a bit of what you say her heliocentric because it contradicts what I have heard. My request is not disingenuous.

Im citing 'the field' - by Lynne McTaggart. The book contains interviews with people whove experimented with Randi.

Ok I will see what I can find out about this.

Well its a tricky one, its hard to know exactly what one should be versed in to run experiments of this kind.
Ideally id like to see a wide range of people within parapsychology, beavioural psychology, perhaps a few people well read on NLP and cold reading as well.
Im certainly not against a former magician being in the mix someone to spot any slights of hand, i do find a magician being the sole driving force of a parapsychology experiment rather worrying though.

He is the man out front but I seriously doubt he is the sole driving force.

Im not sure how long thats been the case to be honest. certainly going by past experiments thats certainly not true.

Actually I think it has been the case for a while.

I think alot of people would actually, many people put them self up for testing all the time without the need for a pot at gold at waiting at the end of the experiment.

Would you think it a credible test if there were no prize?

 

[grover]

And you can't see how finding some proof for psi might keep them in business?

How might it? You're saying that a corporation that is routinely contracted by the U.S. government did sloppy tests because they wanted to prove the existence of a highly controversial phenomenon? Are you saying that they did sloppy tests even though they knew the results would be subject to an even higher level of scrutiny than normal due to the controversial nature of the phenomenon? That's preposterous. It's more likely that they did rigorous scientific testing and reported their findings.

All I was trying to say was that I am sceptical of the results when some of these organisations (I gave more examples than those two) set out to test psi.

Why? Why are you sceptical of this one area of scientific research? Your sceptical because of your beliefs? You are sceptical for the same reason Christian Fundamentalists are sceptical of evolution.

Getting results is in their best interest.

100% incorrect. Remaining a credible corporation is in their best inteest.

I don't think they would influence any results on purpse though.

No, what your saying boils down to this: A highly credible corporation did sloppy scientific research even though they knew if they got positive results they would be subject to an even higher degree of scrutiny than usual. It's ridiculous. A split second of rational thought shows how ridiculous your claim is.

I am just saying that I am sceptical.

Yeah, we know.

I do not ignore anything they publish though. This is no different to your scepticism towards anything that csicop or Randi would say.

It's completely different. Randi isn't a corporation contracted by the government because the government wants impartial data on whether psi is real or not. Randi is a stage magician whose career is based on debunking. Get it? Randi gets proved wrong Randi career over, Randi lose respect, Randi lose home, Randi go hungry, Randi die.

I am assuming that you wouldn't completely discard anything written by sceptics.

True scepticism is part of the scientific process. Your not really sceptical in that sense. Your stance is more comparable to that of A Christian Fundamentalists that dismisses all evidence that doesn't fit in with their belief system.

I have read of some of the poor test protocols that SAIC and SRI have used though.

What are they? Remember, finding things that can be tweaked is common in all science. It's part of refining the tests. Finding things that can be improved is no different than any other field. But let's see some of these "poor test protocols." I am asking you to back up a bit of what you say her shaman because it contradicts what I have heard. My request is not disingenuous.

SRI declared Geller a gifted psychic!

Gasp, oh no!

I could say the same about your attacks on Randi.

No, actually, you can't. Randi is not a science, Randi is a stage magician. If it were only stage magicians that were proponents of evolution then you could say the same thing.

We have been over this evolution thing several times and I have pointed out why it is a false analogy.

Refresh my memory. Why is it a false analogy?

I have also already explained to you before that I think that these abilities are perhaps possible but the evidence is far from compelling at the moment.

Okay, fair enough. But I would point out that "compelling" is a subjective word as evidenced by the fact that Christian Fundamentalists don't see anything "compelling" in the evidence for evolution.

There may be something there (small and unreliable) or there may be experimenter bias.

Fair enough. We both agree that further study is required. But for the scientific process to get anywhere scientists have to act like scientists which means maintaining an sceptical yet open-minded attitude in which no prejudices are brought ot the process and the results are allowed to speak for themselves. This also means that people that claim to be science-minded stop trying to involve a stage magician in the process.

 

[shaman_]

How might it? You're saying that a corporation that is routinely contracted by the U.S. government did sloppy tests because they wanted to prove the existence of a highly controversial phenomenon? Are you saying that they did sloppy tests even though they knew the results would be subject to an even higher level of scrutiny than normal due to the controversial nature of the phenomenon? That's preposterous. It's more likely that they did rigorous scientific testing and reported their findings.

Project Stargate went for 20 years and drained 20 million of taxpayer money because, in the beginning, it appeared to provide some results. The “higher level of scrutiny” didn’t really matter there did it?


I am saying that I would be skeptical of their results, that is all.

Why? Why are you sceptical of this one area of scientific research? Your sceptical because of your beliefs? You are sceptical for the same reason Christian Fundamentalists are sceptical of evolution.

We are talking about a field of research here that has had many problems with fraud and poor testing. It is also a field that people really, really want to be validated. Showing skepticism here is a good idea. It is your beliefs that make it hard for you to see this.

100% incorrect. Remaining a credible corporation is in their best inteest.

No, what your saying boils down to this: A highly credible corporation did sloppy scientific research even though they knew if they got positive results they would be subject to an even higher degree of scrutiny than usual. It's ridiculous. A split second of rational thought shows how ridiculous your claim is.

See Star Gate example.

It's completely different. Randi isn't a corporation contracted by the government because the government wants impartial data on whether psi is real or not. Randi is a stage magician whose career is based on debunking. Get it? Randi gets proved wrong Randi career over, Randi lose respect, Randi lose home, Randi go hungry, Randi die.

It is amusing that you completely discard Randi’s test as irrelevant yet so enthusiastically attack me for just showing skepticism for psi reseach. You can’t see the problem here?

True scepticism is part of the scientific process. Your not really sceptical in that sense. Your stance is more comparable to that of A Christian Fundamentalists that dismisses all evidence that doesn't fit in with their belief system.

Incorrect. I am not the one dismissing things that don’t fit into my belief system. That seems to be what you are doing.

Showing skepticism is not the same as dismissing something. If you do not know the difference perhaps you could look it up in your spare time.

What are they? Remember, finding things that can be tweaked is common in all science. It's part of refining the tests. Finding things that can be improved is no different than any other field. But let's see some of these "poor test protocols." I am asking you to back up a bit of what you say her shaman because it contradicts what I have heard. My request is not disingenuous.

Off the top of my head I remember that for all the SAIC remote viewing tests, all the judging of hit and miss was done by only one person who just happened to be the director of the program. One of the biggest problems with remote viewing is where close enough descriptions are declared hits.

Yes yes tweaking is great. But don’t cling to results that were generated before the tweaking was done. If they do more tests I will be interested in hearing the results. I will even have an open mind. I don’t think you understand (or believe) this.

If you heard of a drug company that had been savagely criticised for there testing protocols would you be eager to buy there aspirin? No you would be wary. You would be skeptical. Due to your beliefs in psi you seem to be happy to put aside all skepticism in this case.

Actually you encourage scepticism at times - as long as it isn't about psi.

Gasp, oh no!

Oh come on grover. You don’t actually think that Uri Geller has psychic powers?! He has been caught cheating several times.

No, actually, you can't. Randi is not a science, Randi is a stage magician. If it were only stage magicians that were proponents of evolution then you could say the same thing.

But Randi’s challenge is a test done in a controlled environment. That is important. You are discarding the results because you do not like them.

As I said to heliocentric, Randi is the man out front but I’m sure there are scientists advising him.

Refresh my memory. Why is it a false analogy?

It would be a fine analogy if the evidence for evolution could be compared to the evidence for psi. The evidence for psi does not even come close. I’m not going into more detail than that.

Okay, fair enough. But I would point out that "compelling" is a subjective word as evidenced by the fact that Christian Fundamentalists don't see anything "compelling" in the evidence for evolution.

It is not compelling because the evidence so far is a very small, unreliable and unrepeatable effect that is just as likely to be experimenter bias. This does not compare to the evidence for evolution – or qm.

Fair enough. We both agree that further study is required. But for the scientific process to get anywhere scientists have to act like scientists which means maintaining an sceptical yet open-minded attitude in which no prejudices are brought ot the process and the results are allowed to speak for themselves. This also means that people that claim to be science-minded stop trying to involve a stage magician in the process.

I agree that Randi’s challenge is not (on its own) going to prove anything scientifically. However it could be the motivation for someone with these potential powers to step up and out of obscurity.

If someone passed the challenge I suspect you would eagerly point to the winner as more proof of psi. I may be wrong. Would you?

 

[TW Scott]

Are you a believer in unconscious, powerful psychic abilities, then, TW Scott? I guess little things like complete lack of evidence don't get in your way.

I don't dismiss the idea as completely impossible. No sane scientist starts with the idea that there is no possibility. As for lack of evidence, not true, most of it is anecdoctal or sketchy like my sister once drawing a completely accurate Picture of Day Off lake, complete with the SWIMMERS ITCH SWIM AT OWN RISK sign three weeks before we discovered said lake in Wexford county while looking for a Pick your own Apple Orchard that had opened there that year. Could be just coincidence and certainly has not been repeated that i know of, but it makes one question things.

Why am I not surprised?

Becuase you recognize, in your own way, that I am a true scientist. I don't assume I know all the answers to life's questions. Unlike yourself.

Name one. Don't forget to provide a link or other reference.

You were the one who claimed that no Skeptic believes science in infallible you provide the proof and it better be good.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Don't be silly. To prove that NO sceptic believes science is infallible, I'd have to ask every skeptic on the planet individually, and probably get each one to sign a document of some kind as evidence.

All YOU have to do is find ONE skeptic who is on the record as saying that science is infallible. Of course, you can't.

Reminds me of Randi's challenge, actually. All that is needed is for ONE person with psychic powers to do what they say they can do, under controlled conditions, and the challenge is over, once and for all. And they win $1 million.

Maybe you ought to get your sister to take the test.

 

[grover]

See Star Gate example.

Ok, i'll olook it up

Showing skepticism is not the same as dismissing something. If you do not know the difference perhaps you could look it up in your spare time.

Sorry I keep arguing with you. You seem reasonable.

Actually you encourage scepticism at times - as long as it isn't about psi.

I always encourage scepticism. That's what sceince is for. People who clami to be science-minded should be sceptical of Randi too.

Oh come on grover. You don’t actually think that Uri Geller has psychic powers?! He has been caught cheating several times.

No, I don't. I think he was very good at tricking people.

If someone passed the challenge I suspect you would eagerly point to the winner as more proof of psi. I may be wrong. Would you?

That's the thing. If someone did pass the Randi challenge it would change nothing. Sceptics would say it prove's nothing and then demand scientific proof. But you are correct I would definitely point to it as more proof of psi. I see your point.

 

[TW Scott]

Don't be silly. To prove that NO sceptic believes science is infallible, I'd have to ask every skeptic on the planet individually, and probably get each one to sign a document of some kind as evidence.

All YOU have to do is find ONE skeptic who is on the record as saying that science is infallible. Of course, you can't.

Actually I probably could find one person who claims to be a skeptic who thinks science is infallible. However you are the one that said NO skeptic would claim that. Since a person label themselves you have a lot of work to do or you could just admit you are wrong. Of course you'll never do that, maninly becuase you believe with all certainty that you are always right. I wish I could enforce the making you prove that no slef proclaimed skeptic believes science is infallible. It would teach you a lesson about spurious claims.

 

[TW Scott]

Reminds me of Randi's challenge, actually. All that is needed is for ONE person with psychic powers to do what they say they can do, under controlled conditions, and the challenge is over, once and for all. And they win $1 million.

Maybe you ought to get your sister to take the test.

I told you that is was a one time thing and that it has never been repeated. It could be coincidence or a fluke of nature. We'll never know.


Though one thing has struck me about these so called test. If I am right from the description they are given one try. One would think a more accurate test would be multiple attempts with multiple subjects (other than the person with the powers) Meanwhile in a Blind control we have a panel of other poeple being through the same tests. 1000 should suffice 510 women 490 men among a mix of ethnicities and religous beliefs to compile an average. of course you have these individuals try to perform the same feat on the same people the claimant is. Once you get a mean average compare it to the claimant. Untill James Randi does that, all he is doing is parading around like some mentally challenged clown.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Actually I probably could find one person who claims to be a skeptic who thinks science is infallible.

It's up to you if you want to make that effort. Otherwise, I guess we'll never know which of the two of us is right, will we? I can live with it. Can you?

Though one thing has struck me about these so called test. If I am right from the description they are given one try. One would think a more accurate test would be multiple attempts with multiple subjects (other than the person with the powers)

The test protocol is negotiated and mutually agreed between the testers and the person trying for the prize. This is done separately for each applicant.

You are not correct that they only get one chance. In fact, most often with people claiming psychic abilities a number of trials will be done, and the results then compared against how many successes we would expect to occur purely by chance.

For example, if Randi is testing a water dowser, they might bury 50 plastic bottles in a row, filling a certain portion (say 10 of the bottles) with water, and leaving the others empty. The dowser would then have to specify which 10 bottles contained the water, based on their dowsing. By chance, we would expect that a person simply guessing that a particular bottle contains water would have a 1 in 5 chance of being correct. We then calculate the chance of getting 0, 1, 2, 3, ... all 10 bottles correct by chance (correcting for any empty bottles picked as containing water, of course). This procedure would be agreed to by the dowser in advance. Any special requirements for how the bottles were buried (or other things) would be worked out in consultation with the dowser. Before they made any attempt, they would be asked to sign an agreement saying that they agreed the test was fair, and also agreeing as to how many "successes" would count as "success" for the overall test, and how many errors they would be allowed.

As for testing multiple subjects at once, this has also been done in the past. Randi and others have held dowser testing days at which perhaps 50 dowsers have all tried their luck. Needless to say, there were no statistically improbable results.

Meanwhile in a Blind control we have a panel of other poeple being through the same tests. 1000 should suffice 510 women 490 men among a mix of ethnicities and religous beliefs to compile an average. of course you have these individuals try to perform the same feat on the same people the claimant is. Once you get a mean average compare it to the claimant. Untill James Randi does that, all he is doing is parading around like some mentally challenged clown.

This kind of thing has been done in some cases. In others it is unnecessary. In my dowsing example, we know from normal statistical analysis that "ordinary" people with no dowsing "skill" will be right only 1 in 5 times that they say a particular buried bottle is full of water. All the dowser has to do to prove his or her special powers is be correct more than 20% of the time (provided this is statistically significant according to standard mathematical criteria).

 

[TW Scott]

It's up to you if you want to make that effort. Otherwise, I guess we'll never know which of the two of us is right, will we? I can live with it. Can you?

James R. you can't pin this on me. You made the claim you make the damn effort. That is the rules of the game. You have bulldogged others for much less. So untill you do make the effort and return the result we both know is right then you are as much admitting you are nothing but a bald faced liar who can't even back down when called on his lie.

 

[TW Scott]

As for the tests I admit I was off in my initial judgement.


However there is a problem with the 50 containers of water test and it is a psychology one. If each location of burial is marked there might be some subconcious pattern identification. As well as a mathematical problem. While finding one of ten in fifty is 20%, finding one of nine in 49 is 18.4% and it does not become 20% again until 4 wrong ones are chosen. then 8 out of 44 is 18.2% and again is not 20% until four more wrong ones are chosen. Now mix in the human minds need to recognize patterns and you have a test that at first blush seems fair, but is hardly a scientific test. Now if you ran a hundred people through it I will bet that the average is less than twenty percent just based off simple psychology.


Of course unless James Randi is a mathematician and Psychologist he would not likely know this and probably assume like most viewers that it is fair with out the control runs.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

James R. you can't pin this on me. You made the claim you make the damn effort.

I already carefully explained to you why I will not do that. I also told you I don't care who "wins" this silly argument. If you want to continue, continue. If not, don't. I don't care.

However there is a problem with the 50 containers of water test and it is a psychology one. If each location of burial is marked there might be some subconcious pattern identification.

To avoid this, you simply use a double-blind randomisation method to choose which bottles contain the water. You know what a double-blind trial is, right?

As well as a mathematical problem. While finding one of ten in fifty is 20%, finding one of nine in 49 is 18.4% and it does not become 20% again until 4 wrong ones are chosen. then 8 out of 44 is 18.2% and again is not 20% until four more wrong ones are chosen.

You're right - if the answers are revealed one by one as the selections are made. What it usually done is simpler than that. The bottles are marked with numbers (1 to 50, say). The dowser does his or her thing and writes down a list of the numbers of the 10 bottles that his powers tell him contain the water. Then, only after all the dowsing is done, the dowser's list is checked against the bottles themselves. This makes success or failure in each "trial" independent of the others.

Now mix in the human minds need to recognize patterns and you have a test that at first blush seems fair, but is hardly a scientific test.

I can't see how a double-blind test would be unfair, but perhaps you can think of how it would be.

If so, I would be very interested in your description of what you would consider an alternative, fair test of dowsing ability.

Bear in mind that if you were a dowser taking Randi's challenge, you would be negotiating the test protocol in exactly this way, until you reached agreement on what you both consider to be a fair test.

Of course unless James Randi is a mathematician and Psychologist he would not likely know this and probably assume like most viewers that it is fair with out the control runs.

You give him far too little credit. He has spent years doing this kind of thing. He has been advised by statisticians, mathematicians and other scientists regarding appropriate statistical methods and protocols. As for psychology, he has some relevant experience. He is a professional conjuror, used to tricking people. He is therefore well placed to detect deliberate fraud, and to design fair tests which guard against that possibility.

Unfortunately, I once again get the impression from you that you haven't really looked into this at all, and you're just shooting from the hip.

Have you at least read the conditions of the million dollar challenge on the JREF website? (www.randi.org)

If not, I urge you to do so.

 

[TW Scott]

To avoid this, you simply use a double-blind randomisation method to choose which bottles contain the water. You know what a double-blind trial is, right?

Yes, I do James, I have performed experiments with people in the past. One of my experiments did indicate that people have a problem with randomness in answers. We gave a standardized MEAP test to fifty college students, twice. One we played with the answers so they formed complex 54 question long patterns (visual of course) and the other scattered it back up by 4 sided die roll. Out of the 50 student 90% of them scored higher on the pattern tests than the random tests.

You're right - if the answers are revealed one by one as the selections are made. What it usually done is simpler than that. The bottles are marked with numbers (1 to 50, say). The dowser does his or her thing and writes down a list of the numbers of the 10 bottles that his powers tell him contain the water. Then, only after all the dowsing is done, the dowser's list is checked against the bottles themselves. This makes success or failure in each "trial" independent of the others.

But as you can see from above, that might be just a tad skewed.

I can't see how a double-blind test would be unfair, but perhaps you can think of how it would be.

And did they remember to factor in the 5% error rate for quality control?

You give him far too little credit. He has spent years doing this kind of thing. He has been advised by statisticians, mathematicians and other scientists regarding appropriate statistical methods and protocols. As for psychology, he has some relevant experience. He is a professional conjuror, used to tricking people. He is therefore well placed to detect deliberate fraud, and to design fair tests which guard against that possibility.

Then I guess he is adding in little rigs, which is sad becuase then he's cheating himself as much as others?

 

[Laika]

Actually I probably could find one person who claims to be a skeptic who thinks science is infallible. However you are the one that said NO skeptic would claim that.

I would make that claim. Or, rather, I'd say that science is not fallible (if there's a difference!). What I mean is that people are infallible. Science is an endeavour/philosophy/field of knowledge. How can it be either?

 

[Laika]

What i came up with is a creationist who puts up a million dollar challenge to anyone who can prove evolutionary theory as being 'correct'.
You would never persuade him, noone would ever claim that million.

I disagree. The James Randi challenge does not involve any theorizing. Your abilities can (should!) be totally inexplicable. Randi would not ask for evolutionary theory to be proven correct, but for the process of evolution to be demonstrated. This most certainly could be performed to meet pre-agreed criteria.

 

[heliocentric]

I disagree. The James Randi challenge does not involve any theorizing. Your abilities can (should!) be totally inexplicable. Randi would not ask for evolutionary theory to be proven correct, but for the process of evolution to be demonstrated. This most certainly could be performed to meet pre-agreed criteria.

I think you may have missed the point slightly, the reason that i invoked that argument was simply to show that when you build a career and a whole frame of logic around something being absolutely true/untrue the odds are an any experiment you conduct will yield the exact results you want.
Bring money into the equation and youre muddying the waters even further.

There is actually quite a few 'heres a mil, prove me wrong' experiments knocking about at the moment and ive honestly never heard of one even comming close to going against the experimentor's beliefs.
I may be wrong, if someones heard of one going against the experimentor let me know - but from what ive seen theyre essentially little more than private funds set up to stand as 'proofs' in their own right.

The fact that all these experiments still have x amount of $ waiting to be claimed is really a way of saying 'if this were true, the money would have been claimed by now'.
Now this is a pretty dangerous route to take in doing science, luckily its mostly fringe stuff from what ive seen from people who the most part arnt scientists. But it would be catastrauphoic if this model was adopted by everyone, what youd end up with is a kind of experimental stale-mate, nothing gets proved, nothing gets disproved, with a few people people suing each here and there to get the money they believe is owed to them.

It seems a pretty odd way of doing business to me to be honest, if others see this model as being genuinely unbiased and something that could be adopted by the larger scientific community as a valuable tool for aquiring proofs then so be it.
I feel this topic is going round in circles at this point, and we're not really convincing each other either way, so i'll probably leave it there.

 

[TW Scott]

I would make that claim. Or, rather, I'd say that science is not fallible (if there's a difference!). What I mean is that people are infallible. Science is an endeavour/philosophy/field of knowledge. How can it be either?

However Science is a human endeavor, there can be no knowledge without one to learn/discover it. So by defintion Scinece must either be fallible or it does not exist.