From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:  How to Handle Scientific "Unorthodoxy"
Date: 27 Dec 1992 12:23:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec23.003135.20240@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
[From a colloquium]

=As a sociologist of science I remain outside of the controversies surrounding
=unconventional claims in science.  My committment is to the judicial process
=within the scientific community rather than the resolution of specific debates.

Translation:  I don't know anything about science, and am going to deal with it
as if it were, e.g., literary criticism.

=My general concern is to try to foster an interdisciplinary program, best
=called anomalistics, on the study of facts that seem unexplained by our
=current models.

Translation:  Having flouted my ignorance of science, I'm going to support
every crackpot claim that showS up.  The less the connection to reality, the
better.

=In order to study anomalies in science we have to be
=interdisciplinary because we don't know ultimately where an anomaly will fit.

Translation:  If some crackpot comes up with a perpetual motion machine, I'll
bet we can find a biologist who'll believe in it.  Conversely, if a crackpot
comes up with a panacea, I'll bet we can find a physicists who'll believe in
it.  Don't let's restrict ourselves to having scientists deal with anomalies in
their own fields!  Heavens!  To do that would restrict the flow of new ideas!

=For example, if it is a UFO, we don't know if it will contribute to astronomy,
=sociology, psychology, or meteorology in the end.  An interdisciplinary
=approach to anomalies is absolutely necessary.

Translation:  If we pick enough fields, at least one researcher in one of the
fields is likely to validate whatever crackpot claim is put forth.

=There are three broad approaches to anomaly studies.  The first approach is
=usually called the Fortean approach.  It is generally characterized by what
=critics would call mystery mongering.  The main problem with it is that if
=you give an explanation to a phenomenon, even if you agree with the existence
=of the anomaly, the representatives of this approach are unhappy because they
=prefer the idea of mystery.

Yup.

=The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers'
=approach.  This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community
=towards anomaly claims.  It is characterized by the Committee for the
=Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).  "Whatever is
=claimed is nothing but ... something else."  Seemingly anomalous phenomena
=are denied first and sometimes investigated only second.  Like the Fortean
=the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation.  Whereas the
=Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they
=believe they have already them.

'Fraid not.  It's "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
known phenomena, then why should we invent a new phenomenon to explain it?"

=The third approach, which I've tried to empower and legitimate, is the
=zetetic.  Zetetic is an old word coming from the Greek followers of the
=skeptical philosopher, Pyrrho.  The main feature of this approach is to
=emphasize the communal norm of skepticism present in the scientific
=community.  By skepticism I would like to strongly distinguish between doubt
=and denial.  Doubt is the skeptical approach; the debunker's approach is
=denial.  True skepticism which is a part of  science consists of doubt
=preceeding inquiry, and that essentially takes the position of non-belief
=rather than of disbelief.  The main elements of the zetetic approach are:
=firstly, ignorance; secondly, some doubt; thirdly, an emphasis upon inquiry.
=Charles Sanders Peirce required that the first and primary obligation of any
=philosopher or scientist is to do nothing that would block inquiry.  This
=approach involves a general acceptance of what Mario Bunge calls methodism,
=on science as method, not science as some established absolute body of
=knowledge.

Gee.  This sounds, since she's ruled out our being allowed to explain
observations in terms of known phenomena, like she's advocating that we
reinvent a god for each and every natural phenomenon.

=The most important thing here is that maverick ideas, unconventional claims,
=and anomalies must be viewed not as crises but as opportunities.

So we're to view McElwaine as a new opportunity?  Despite the fact that his
claims show that he doesn't even understand the paradigms that he claims are
wrong?  Having an open mind is on thing, but you want our brains all over the
floor.


[Lots more drivel, along the line's of McElwaine's ill-founded claims that
"they said it couldn't be done, but it was" deleted.

Is it too much to ask that the crackpots come up with a few new arguments from
time to time?  Must they trot out the same hoary (and irrelevent) examples time
after time after time?

For a group that claims to be promoting new ideas, this group of crackpots
seems to be using abysmally hackneyed claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories