How come many alternative science advocates have a disdain for the scientific method.?

Question

Once again, the other day a guy was trying to convince me that crop circles are impossible to have been made by people. When I tried to ask him about control goups vs test groups or simply direct logical reasoning, his reply was that cereologists aren't into that science sh**t.

I've heard similar comments many times before. Is it that alt-sci advocates don't even know what the scentific method is? Or is it that logic will shatter their choosen beleifs so that logical thinking is refered to as "sh**t"? Some seem to think that utilzing expensive equipment or using words like "quantum" means that they are performing science. Basically, that tells me that they are simply uneducated or gullible. What is your view of why these people don't respect science?

Answer 1

Cereologists, LOL  Thats funny.  I mean would you really put that on a business card, on a resume?  Why not just put " I'm A Raving Lunatic".  My god they have movies of people making them,  they don't believe the movies, and what about all the people arrested for trespassing.

Answer 2

I think people will try to discredit anything that goes against their own point of view. So they are probably uneducated and prejudiced.

Answer 3

What does disdain mean?????

EDIT..It's not always that a person is "interested" in the paranormal. Sometimes things "happen" to them and they want to understand what happened...and science really doesn't give good answers to these things. If I ever heard a REALLY GOOD answer from science to explain these things..I'd say"OH..now I understand!" and leave it at that. But it never happens. Just like Cris Angel....if he explained his tricks...then you'd "understand" and wouldn't be so fascinated . You'd quit searching for the answer...because you found it!

Answer 4

Because science doesn't prove them right, in fact it proves them wrong, so SCIENCE must be thing one that's flawed, not them.  You hear this from homeopathists all the time - and religious people - that their 'science' or their god can't be tested using actual science.  They just must not understand the point of science - to test the natural world.  And if it's not natural, chances are very good it's not there.

As a physicist, the 'quantum' argument drives me nuts.  Next time they try it, ask them to write down the wavefunction for you.   :)

Answer 5

Because it doesn't back up their fanciful notions.They rationalize saying science can't disprove it.I want to believe it so I will.That's not to say all of them are uneducated and gullible.Some are way to smart to think mystically.We can learn a lot from them.

Answer 6

In Australia this problem is seiously entrenched in many agricultural industries. A recent book "Back from the brink" advises farmers not to worry about weeds, and proposes numerous "stategies", mostly unscientific, to manage rural properties. This book was published and promoted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, giving it undeserved credibility.

Answer 7

If you really want to get through to a person you have to do it at their level and not expect everyone to have taken science 101.

You have to understand that you are discussing things that cannot be proven.  No matter which way you believe, there is not enough evidence to change your mind so science isn't going to help when it comes to belief systems.

Answer 8

It is not a disdain for the sci. method. Everything is relative to one's own perspective. "The Scientific Method" only works with the laws of physics that we are aware of or the ones that we can perceive. You sound exactly like the church when Galileo tried to popularize Aristotle's' (firmly established by Copernicus) theory that the sun was actually the center of the solar system. Did they have control groups? Would you have believed him? I doubt it. And look now, an idea that you would have completely gone against if you were alive back then, with the advent of "new" technology and scientific methods, comes to be proven true. And to say "chosen beliefs", man you are far from being a scientific thinker. You are stuck in a 4 dimensional material world because you "chose" to think inside of those limits. Can you yourself prove below a subatomic level that anything is solid, whole or "real" (in your perception of reality) as you realists like to say. No you can't, nobody can. The current "scientific method" is merely a set of rules to produce a particular conclusion. So in other words, its a set of restrictions. So to put you to the test. You should try to prove that crop circles found on Earth are not made by anything other than humans by using the "scientific method". Oh!!, wait, you can't, that would require a control and test group of alien crop circle artists to compare to human crop circle artists. That my friend is why the "scientific method" like many others are c**p. The method can't conclusively and simultaneously prove one side and disprove the other with 100% certainty. You might get to 99% certainty or so, but as science does recognize, a discrepancy is a discrepancy. I would suggest to not harass the community of alt. science as you call it, but to study it as much as uh, non alt. science. So as "To not have a biased or self interest tainted conclusion". Hmmm. that sounds very much like the "scientific method". You should also take some college level Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Math that includes linear equations and algorythmns, Philosophy, History, Biology  and anything involving nano-tech. Basically a degree.

As of now, the questions that I have seen you posting are very one side, closed minded, and do not support your constant reluctance to the "scientific method", of which you do not seem to be putting to practice. Think about it.

G out!!

Answer 9

I answer this question with the acknowledged prejudice that I expect any answer that does not confirm your belief will be rejected.

First let us examine your mistakes in deductive reasoning. You have said based on your conversation with a cereologist (one in particular) that many (and you failed to define many) alternative science advocates disdain the scientific method. If you have thus reasoned from a specific to a general and attempted to deduce a logical conclusion in violation of one of the basic rules of deductive reasoning. You have said that you heard similar comments many times before but fail to identify who these comments were from. Just like main stream science separates botany and physics, alternative sciences likewise is not represented by one big group with shared interest, beliefs, and methods.

This would be similar to me asking why many scientist have a disdain for survey, case study, and ethnographic research. Obviously this type of research is not disdained by anthropologist and sociologist. However, if I only talked to biologist and physicist (who do not normally employee these methods) then I might get the impression that all scientist (including social scientist) have a disdain for these types of research.

Second, you have reached a tentative conclusion "don't even know what the scientific method is" and "logic will shatter their chosen beliefs" without first making observations and researching this question. However, I'm sure your question could be answered with simple survey research asking advocates (that you would have to carefully define for a sample) to describe their understanding of the scientific method.

That said I agree that control groups, double blind experiments, and the scientific method are not used enough by several investigators into paranormal phenomena. They are frequently used in the field of parapsychology.

I agree the equipment and vocabulary do not equal practicing the methods and procedures of science.

However, drawing a conclusion not based on observations or experimental evidence that a person is either uneducated or gullible (which is an opinion and nothing more) is also not practicing logic or science.

This question (are they uneducated) could also be answered by simple survey (and perhaps confirmation) of what level of education they have obtained.

I support your defense of the scientific method and logic and do not support your generalizations, bad use of logic, and failure to use the scientific method.

Answer 10

I am a scientist, and I understand the scientific method requires a repeatable test with defined results.  The problem with most paranormal phenomenon is that it cannot easily be repeated.  When dealing with phenomenon that cannot be "coerced" to occur, and phenomenon that is rarely seen, it is very difficult to design experiments that will test any hypothesis.  

In most scientific fields, when a phenomenon cannot be created, but only observed, the scientists in the field use the limited information that they have to generate hypothesis to continue their studies.  The scientists often rely on anecdotal evidence because it is all that they have to work with.  It is the same with the paranormal.  Irregular and infrequent events are examined for consistency.

I don't believe that most paranormal investigators have a disdain for science, but many skeptics -on this forum- point to the lack of repeatable experiments as *proof* that the phenomenon *doesn't* exist.  This is just bad logic.  Just because repeatable experiments have not been constructed does not prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

If you want to be a skeptic with credibility in any field, you have to consider *all* of the evidence,  and, in this field, you have to admit that some results are unexplainable using standard science.  You may question the explanations put forth by others, but, unless you can absolutely prove them false, you must consider them a possibility if you are a scientist.

Many scientists dismiss claims of the paranormal "out of hand" without examining the evidence.  This is disrepectful to the people who are truly trying to examine unexplained phenomenon with a discerning eye.  If you want to get somebody mad, tell them that you don't respect *their* science.

Answer 11

It does seem there is a deep disdain for science in the paranormal community.  It's not just with believers in one particular phenomenon either.  It seems like there are paranormalists who will believe in completely dissimilar things (i.e. ghosts and UFOs) simply because they are both paranormal.  I don't pretend to understand, but perhaps it's because magical thinking is unscientific so all things unscientific are appealing to a particular type of person (a reality rebel?).

Answer 12

The scientific methods seeks to find truths and facts.  Alternative science is the science of what-if... Proofs and truths are scarce in truly alternative science and the scientific method and the pure scientists themselves cannot think in such expansive ways - if they stand on a floor - it must be proven.