When does a subject qualify as science?

I

Ivan Seeking

Registered Senior Member
When does a given subject qualify as a subject of earth science?

Consider ball lightning. This phenomenon was long thought to be a simple matter of false perceptions and exaggerations. Now I understand that this is considered to be a genuine meteorological phenomenon. When and how did this happen? The pictures that I have seen don't constitute proof of this claim. I don't think we have ever made the stuff to any degree of satisfaction.

Earthquake lights are another example. This used to be treated as pseudoscience. Now it is used to explain other pseudoscientific propositions. When did this happen. Where is the evidence for these phenomena?

How does a disputed subject make this transition? Is this just a matter of a simple popularity head count? Is there some kind of magic number? Does one, or one hundred good pieces of evidence constitute a credible subject?
 
Ivan Seeking:
How does a disputed subject make this transition? Is this just a matter of a simple popularity head count? Is there some kind of magic number? Does one, or one hundred good pieces of evidence constitute a credible subject?
Click to expand...

High school does not end in high school. Popularity contests go on forever. It seems that earthquake light phenomena was the stuff of quacks and hearsay until teh NSF got its hands on it:


"The first known scientific investigation of earthquake lights took place in the 1930s (finally taken up by the NSF and their clones). In the 1960s, earthquake lights were well documented in a series of photographs taken in Japan. They've been described as being like sheet lightning, but with a single flash lasting longer than lightning. Others describe earthquake lights as consisting of beams and columns of light -- seen before, during or after earthquakes. And still others report clouds that were illuminated during earthquakes -- or an eerie glow in the sky."

So it seems that water molecules magically breaking up and rejoining to relase light in the pressure of crumbing rock is hogwash until a major organization decides its worth looking into.

Jesus I'm bored.


www.earthysky.com
 
This is a common misconception: "Science" is not about certain subjects, "science" is about methods. Certainly some subjects are more common in scientific research than others, but it is still about methods.

So, if somebody makes a piece of scietifically sound research on ghosts, it is science.

But if somebody goes into a chemistry lab and tosses some substances together without taking notes, then drinks a sample and write down his ideas of what happend (assuming he survives :eek:), it is NOT science.

A subject becomes a scientific subject if it is treated in a scientific way, but only for that investigation.

A subject like quantum theory is considered good science because the theories it consists of are based on scientific research.

A subject like dowsing is not considered good science because the theories behind it are not based in scientific research.

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
This is a common misconception: "Science" is not about certain subjects, "science" is about methods. Certainly some subjects are more common in scientific research than others, but it is still about methods.

So, if somebody makes a piece of scietifically sound research on ghosts, it is science.

But if somebody goes into a chemistry lab and tosses some substances together without taking notes, then drinks a sample and write down his ideas of what happend (assuming he survives :eek:), it is NOT science.

A subject becomes a scientific subject if it is treated in a scientific way, but only for that investigation.

A subject like quantum theory is considered good science because the theories it consists of are based on scientific research.

A subject like dowsing is not considered good science because the theories behind it are not based in scientific research.

Hans
Click to expand...

Yes it was very sloppy of me to post the question this way. To put it simply, the scientific investigation of unpopular subjects can be a career ending endeavor. How do subjects gain acceptance given that the potential explanation may lie outside of the bounds of known science; given that repeatable experiments are not possible due to the transient or obscure nature of a claimed phenomenon?
 
Originally posted by James R
You might want to look here for the distinction between science and pseudoscience:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18984
Click to expand...
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.
Click to expand...


Basically, my contention is that nearly all fringe subjects are inappropriately treated as if they WERE pseudoscience; in spite of the scientific evidence to be found. Consider your own reference.

3. Is it supported by evidence?

All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody's authority…. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.
Click to expand...

First, you don’t even bother to define the subject. A UFO might be a balloon, or a plane, or a bird. Should we assume that birds and planes and balloons don’t exist? This clearly demonstrates that science has adopted its own religious views about what is real and not; and about what we mean when we say something.
In fact, this
but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so
Click to expand...
is a pseudoscientific assumption within your definition of science. Here are a few examples why.

Still in Default
by Dr. Bruce Maccabee
http://216.128.67.116/pdf/stillindefault.pdf

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the
Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
September 29 – October 4, 1997 :
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html

The Cometa Report:
http://www.cufos.org/cometa.html

FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING
ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS
Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.
Copyright 1992
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/92apsiee.htm

Atmosphere or UFO?
by Bruce Maccabee Ph.D.
Optical physicist for the Navy Deparment
--on RADAR events
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/maccabee/1.html

ACCELERATION
Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.
http://www.nidsci.org/articles/maccabee/acceleration.html

The Case for the Extraterrestrial Origins of Flying Saucers
by Stanton Friedman
http://216.128.67.116/pdf/friedman.pdf

PANEL URGES STUDY OF UFO REPORTS
Unexplained Phenomena Need Scrutiny, Science Group Says
By Kathy Sawyer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 29, 1998; Page A01
http://www.aliensonearth.com/misc/1998/jun/d29-001.shtml
 
Ivan sez:

Basically, my contention is that nearly all fringe subjects are inappropriately treated as if they WERE pseudoscience; in spite of the scientific evidence to be found.

You couldn’t be more wrong. If evidence and observation are part of the process, then it is science. Pseudoscience is based on fallacious assumptions.

This clearly demonstrates that science has adopted its own religious views about what is real and not; and about what we mean when we say something.

Spoken like a true crackpot and again, you couldn’t be more wrong.

It is your belief in visiting aliens and such nonsense that most resembles a religion.

is a pseudoscientific assumption within your definition of science. Here are a few examples why.

Sorry, but those links are pseudoscience – some in the extreme. They have little, if nothing to do with science.
 
Ivan,
He raised points. You completely ignored them and brought up a comment that he made in a different thread. Regardless of how mature you think he has a valid point, which is:
If evidence and observation are part of the process, then it is science. Pseudoscience is based on fallacious assumptions.

Ignoring the rest, I see no error in this.
 
Originally posted by Persol
Ivan,
He raised points. You completely ignored them and brought up a comment that he made in a different thread. Regardless of how mature you think he has a valid point, which is:
If evidence and observation are part of the process, then it is science. Pseudoscience is based on fallacious assumptions.

Ignoring the rest, I see no error in this.
Click to expand...

First, I will gladly respond to any intelligent comments. Q however has shown that he is not willing to cut the crap. IMO, he deserves no attention.

As far as your point, you are missing mine. I completely agree about the scientific method. We have evidence for UFOs for example, but most scientists are unwilling to give the evidence serious consideration. If a credible scientist writes a well balanced paper on UFOs he or she could well be ending their career as they know it. I have personally suffered damage in business when some engineers saw my SETI@HOME screen saver program. This was used against me by someone with whom I had a personality conflict. Do you feel that this represents a balanced scientific perspective for a bunch of professional engineers? Doing GOOD science reflected badly on me personally. This is the attitude that many universities are churning out.

Edit: I even hear people from one school of thought, like string theorists, who refer to other schools of thought, like the many worlds people or mainstream Quantum Cosmology, as nonsense or pseudoscience. Clearly these are all credible schools of thought in the scientific sense; no matter how wrong or right they may be. Some scientists would have you believe that they alone posses divine truth.

How often, for example, do we see alternative arguments cited by posters who answer complex questions. Answers are usually given as THE TRUTH. I feel that this leads many students astray - on the internet, in text books, and in the popular scientific literature.

It is as if we have replaced the purpose and spirit of science with the method. The method is only a method. It is not the entire subject. I now hear people citing Occam's Razor as if it were a conservation law. I recently had to point out that this is just a rule of thumb not a law of physics. This was actually being used as a proof.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
As far as your point, you are missing mine. I completely agree about the scientific method. We have evidence for UFOs for example, but most scientists are unwilling to give the evidence serious consideration.
I have yet to see what would be considered good evidence. Malestrom sounds interesting, but as I've said... I can't access the links.

I have personally suffered damage in business when some engineers saw my SETI@HOME screen saver program. This was used against me by someone with whom I had a personality conflict. Do you feel that this represents a balanced scientific perspective for a bunch of professional engineers?
I'm a mechanical engineer. I could never imagine anybody I work with using SETI@HOME as an attack on me. The only reason this could be used against you is the use of company bandwidth.

How often, for example, do we see alternative arguments cited by posters who answer complex questions. Answers are usually given as THE TRUTH.
This is a pet peeve of mine. To think that a theory is the absolute truth is short-sighted. However, thinking you know the truth, and not having any evidence, is even worse.

It is as if we have replaced the purpose and spirit of science with the method. The method is only a method. It is not the entire subject. I now hear people citing Occam's Razor as if it were a conservation law. I recently had to point out that this is just a rule of thumb not a law of physics. This was actually being used as a proof.
Science is based on method, most notably experimental/analytical methods. That is the only differentiation betweeen science/non-science. Occam's Razor is in itself not a 'scientific method'. It is a philosophy.
 
First, I will gladly respond to any intelligent comments. Q however has shown that he is not willing to cut the crap. IMO, he deserves no attention.

A belief in aliens visiting Earth is worthy of intelligent discussion? Maybe it's you who needs to ‘cut the crap.’

We have evidence for UFOs for example, but most scientists are unwilling to give the evidence serious consideration.

Could it be that the massive onslaught of personal testimonials does NOT outweigh the lack of hard evidence in its favor?

Bytheby – The polka-dotted dragon living in my basement has eaten another visitor.

So Ivan, why don’t you pop round for a drink next week sometime?
 
Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I have yet to see what would be considered good evidence. Malestrom sounds interesting, but as I've said... I can't access the links.
Click to expand...


You don't consider RADAR data evidence? I know that you can open the links that I posted just above. Your comments would indicate that you never opened them.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I could never imagine anybody I work with using SETI@HOME as an attack on me. The only reason this could be used against you is the use of company bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Here we see how thorough your own thinking is. "The only reason" is that I am a private contractor. This was on my personal notebook. I am a systems integrator and consultant.

This is a pet peeve of mine. To think that a theory is the absolute truth is short-sighted. However, thinking you know the truth, and not having any evidence, is even worse.
Click to expand...

Again you assume that we have no evidence when you admitted that you can't open links. We do have the same pet peeve. What about RADAR data is not evidence?

Science is based on method, most notably experimental/analytical methods. That is the only differentiation betweeen science/non-science. Occam's Razor is in itself not a 'scientific method'. It is a philosophy.
Click to expand...

We have to explore before we can analyze. Included in the reality of science is personal bias, perception, opinions, peer pressure, and possibly limitations that may make science impotent in the study of some genuine phenomenon. Here is a law that by far supercedes Occam's Razor in significance: You can't separate the experiment from the experimenter. You can't argue that science exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. I acknowledge the scientific method. You are using the claim of bad method to practice your own pseudoscience.
 
in post by Q:

If evidence and observation are part of the process, then it is science. Pseudoscience is based on fallacious assumptions.
=================================================

Evidence and observation ARE part of the process in the study of
UFOs. Could you show me what evidence and observation exists
for the currently accepted scientific theory of the INCREASING RATE
of expansion of the universe? Observation tells us that things were
moving away from us faster 10 billion years ago than they were
one thousand years ago. That doesn't seem to be an increasing rate to me, just the opposite. The increasing rate of expansion is supposed to be due to this never detected substance called dark
energy with anti-gravity properties. There is no observation or direct
evidence of either dark energy or increasing rate of expansion. There is trace evidence, radar evidence and observational testimony
of countless witnesses including airline pilots, physicists and astronauts supporting the existance of UFOs.
 
Originally posted by Persol
[B However, thinking you know the truth, and not having any evidence, is even worse. [/B]
Click to expand...

To what truth did I lay claim? You are very loose with your facts.
 
My answer to your original question, even if that was not well worded, still stands:

Science applies to any subject. Of course, the carreer-conscious scientist may prefer some subjects to others, but there is no such thing as a pseudo-science label that comes with the subject itself. Investigate UFOs in a scientific way, and it will be accepted as science. Funding, however, might be a problem since funding tends to go where there is some hope of profit.

There exist scientific investigation reports on most subjects that are generally considered "non-scientific"; UFOs, dowsing, clairvoyance, mediums, ghosts, NDE, etc, etc. It is just that those reports show results that are unconclusive or negative, so believers tend to ignore them and instead perpetuate the myth that "no scientists dare touch this".

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
My answer to your original question, even if that was not well worded, still stands:

Science applies to any subject. Of course, the carreer-conscious scientist may prefer some subjects to others, but there is no such thing as a pseudo-science label that comes with the subject itself. Investigate UFOs in a scientific way, and it will be accepted as science. Funding, however, might be a problem since funding tends to go where there is some hope of profit.

There exist scientific investigation reports on most subjects that are generally considered "non-scientific"; UFOs, dowsing, clairvoyance, mediums, ghosts, NDE, etc, etc. It is just that those reports show results that are unconclusive or negative, so believers tend to ignore them and instead perpetuate the myth that "no scientists dare touch this".

Hans
Click to expand...

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities."
Click to expand...
(Sturrock, Peter A., Report on a Survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning the UFO Phenomenon, Stanford University Report SUIPR 68IR, 1977.)

"Although... the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant. Such views have been presented in the Hearings of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics [and elsewhere]. It is also notable that one major national scientific society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, set up a subcommittee in 1967 to 'gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO phenomenon.'
In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." (Sturrock, Peter A., "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)"
Click to expand...

-- Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Director of the Skylab Workshop on Solar Flares in 1977
 
"During the years that I have been its consultant, the Air Force has consistently argued that UFO's were either hoaxes, hallucinations or misinterpretations of natural phenomena. For the most part I would agree with the Air Force. As a professional astronomer--I am chairman of the department of astronomy at Northwestern University--I have had no trouble explaining the vast majority of the reported sightings. But I cannot explain them all. Of the 15,000 cases that have come to my attention, several hundred are puzzling, and some of the puzzling incidents, perhaps one in 25, are bewildering. I have wanted to learn much more about these cases than I have been able to get from either the reports or the witnesses....Getting at the truth of "flying saucers" has been extraordinarily difficult because the subject automatically engenders such instantaneous reactions and passionate beliefs. Nearly all of my scientific colleagues, I regret to say, have scoffed at the reports of UFO's as so much balderdash, although this was a most unscientific reaction since virtually none of them had ever studied the evidence. Until recently my friends in the physical sciences wouldn't even discuss UFO's with me. The subject, in fact, rarely came up. My friends were obviously mystified as to how I, a scientist, could have gotten mixed up with "flying saucers"
Click to expand...
---Saturday Evening Post: 1966

-- Dr. J. Allen Hynek: Professor emeritus and chairman of the astronomy department at Northwestern University. Earlier, he was director of the Lundheimer Astronomical Research Center at Northwestern. He has written astronomy books and articles that have appeared in numerous science journals, as well as an astronomy column for Science Digest magazine. He was chief scientist for NASA's satellite tracking program, and for twenty years was the scientific consultant to the United States Air Force in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon. He is credited with coining the phrase "close encounters of the third kind" and was Steven Spielberg's technical consultant on the film of that name. Dr. Hynek died in April 1986.
 
When Prof. Peter Sturrock, a prominent Stanford University plasma physicist, conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society he found that astronomers who spent time reading up on the UFO phenomenon developed more interest in it. If there were nothing to it, you would expect the opposite.
Click to expand...
Bernard Haisch, Ph.D.,
Director of the California Institute For Physics and Astrophysics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top