Re: Evolution and Creationism

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

----- Original Message -----
From: William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>
> I hope you aren't suggesting that Randi attempts replications of
> scientific claims.  I would agree that James Randi does use reasoning to
> throw light on claims of many phenomenon.  The bulk of these claims are
> misguided and deserve to be disproved.  However, CSICOP is not a group of
> researchers who attempt replications of reported phenomena.

No, I wasn't suggesting that what Randi does is science (by our non-existent
definition) only that he uses some scientific methods (such as requiring
replication, controlled environments, etc.).

> There is a big difference between debunking a claim and scientifically
> testing it.  For example, if I report evidence for an unorthodox
> phenomenon, and if a skeptical person shows how that phenomenon violates
> physical law, that in itself does not disprove the claim, because history
> shows that the discovery of anomalous evidence occasionally forces us to
> change what we had previously regarded as solid physics.  Only by
> *successfully* replicating a claimed phenomenon can I make a decision
> about its genuineness.  With no replication, all we can do is make
> judgements based on probabilities.  Even a failed replication can be
> attributed to other problems besides the non-existence of the phenomenon
> in question.  To demonstrate that a phenomenon does not exist, a series of
> replications is required.  If even a tiny portion of them succeed, then
> the question has not been answered entirely.

The problem here, IMO, is that the phenomena in question (ghosts, angels,
UFOs, etc.) are not replicable and therefore science is severely limited in
what it can do to confirm/disprove such.  It is also probably quite
difficult to get your "Negative Results Concerning Poltergeist Confirmation"
published.  Certainly various government and private studies of UFO
phenomenon have been dealt with seriously (by some) on a scientific level
but this work is buried in the reports.  Academic level studies of
'paranormal' phenomenon exist (have existed) but without achieving
convincing evidence to sway the scientific community as a whole.

I just thought your original note suggested almost a 'conspiracy' level of
scientific neglect of these topics which I feel is unwarranted.  I think we
are in agreement about most of the rest.

Rick

*******************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE Physics Educational Software
Available for Download

see:  www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ for details
*******************************************************