Opus 100: What skepticism reveals about science
by Michael Shermer
The episode "The Springfield Cases" in the series "The Simpsons" that aired in 1997 was a parody of the series "Bags in the Dark". In the introduction to the episode, in which Homer meets aliens in the forest (after swallowing 10 bottles of beer), Leonard Nimoy's voice is heard, as heard in the TV mystery series "In Search of..." in which he participated in the period after Mr. Spock: "The story of the meeting with aliens before you is a true story. And when I say real, I mean fake. All lies. But these are entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no."
The postmodernist belief in the relativity of truth, combined with the remote control culture of mass media, where attention spans are measured in minutes according to New York time, leaves us with a bewildering variety of apparent truths wrapped in educational-entertainment packaging. It has to be true, I've seen it on TV, in the movies, on the internet. "The Twilight Zone", "The Outer Limits", "It's Amazing", "The Sixth Sense", "Poltergeist", "A Little Difference", "Zeitgeist - The Movie". Mystery, magic, myths and monsters. The Secret and Supernatural Theory. Conspiracy and acceptance. The face on Mars and aliens on Earth. Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. Supersensory perception and parapsychology. UFOs and extraterrestrial entities. JFK, RFK, MLK and other conspiracies in acronyms. States of consciousness and hypnotic withdrawals. Remote viewing and out-of-body experiences. séance boards and tarot cards. Astrology and palm reading. Acupuncture and chiropractic. Repressed memories and false memories. A conversation with the dead and listening to the inner child in us. These claims create a confusing mix of theories and hypotheses, reality and imagination, nonfiction and science fiction. Put on dramatic music. Darken the screen. Shine a spotlight on the presenter's face. The truth is somewhere. We want to believe.
But the things we want to believe based on emotion and the things we should believe based on factual evidence don't always line up. And after 99 monthly columns [more than 40 of which were translated into Hebrew - the editors] in which I explored these issues (hence the name Opus 100), I came to the conclusion that I am a skeptic not because I don't want to believe but because I want to know. I believe the truth is out there somewhere. But how do we know how to differentiate between what we want to be the truth and the truth for the truth? The answer is science.
Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that any claim we investigate is false until proven otherwise. The statistical criteria by which the evidence rejecting the null hypothesis is evaluated are solid criteria. Ideally, in a controlled trial, we want to be 95% to 99% sure that the results are not random before we agree to give conditional consent that the phenomenon might be real. Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not always a guarantee of truth. And yet, the scientific method is the best tool ever developed to distinguish between real and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and imagination, and to identify nonsense.
According to the null hypothesis, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, and not on the skeptics to refute. I once appeared on Larry King's talk show to talk about UFOs (always his favorite subject). Many UFOlogists sat around the table. The questions King posed to the other skeptics and to me missed the central principle of science. It is not the job of the skeptics to disprove the existence of UFOs. Although we cannot conduct a controlled experiment that will yield a statistical probability of rejecting (or not) the null hypothesis that aliens do not visit Earth, the proof should be simple: show us an alien spaceship or an extraterrestrial body. Until then, keep looking and get back to us when you have something in hand. Unfortunately for UFOlogists, scientists cannot accept as conclusive proof of alien visitation evidence such as blurry photographs, grainy videos and random stories about strange lights in the sky. Photographs and films can be easily faked, and lights in the sky have many simple explanations (atmospheric flashes, lighted balloons, experimental aircraft and even the planet Venus). It is also impossible to accept edited government reports as evidence of encounters with aliens, because we know that governments keep secrets for security reasons. And earthly secrets are no match for extraterrestrial cover stories.
Many of these types of claims are based on evidence by way of negation. That is, if science is unable to explain anything, your explanation must be correct. And it is not so. In science, many mysteries remain unexplained until new evidence emerges, and many problems are waiting to be solved one day. I remember a mystery from the early 90s, when it seemed that there were ancient stars from the universe itself - the old son of his father! I thought I had a hot story on my hands that would reveal a fundamental error in the cosmological models. First, I turned to cosmologist Kip S. Thorn of the California Institute of Technology. He assured me that the discrepancy was only due to a problem in estimating the age of the universe, and that this would be resolved automatically when new data arrived and new methods of age determination were developed. And so it did happen, as it eventually happened in many other scientific problems. And in the meantime it's perfectly fine to say: "I don't know," "I'm not sure" and "We'll wait and see."
To be fair, not all claims can be tested in laboratory experiments or statistical tests. Many historical and historical sciences require a diverse analysis of data and the integration of evidence from many lines of research to lead to unquestionable conclusions. Just as detectives combine evidence using different methods to conclude with the highest probability who committed the crime, scientists also use a similar method to determine what is the most likely explanation for a certain phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by combining data from the fields of cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Geologists reconstruct the history of the Earth by combining evidence from the fields of geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Archaeologists reconstruct the history of a culture by examining pollen, kitchen waste, pottery, tools, artefacts, written sources and other objects unique to the site. Climate scientists examine man-made global warming from the perspectives of environmental science, planetary geology, geophysics, glaciation science, meteorology, chemistry, biology, ecology, and more. Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth using geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, psychology, genetics, and more.
But as long as a particular historical or historical science establishes its claims well through the accumulation of positive evidence, they are just as valid as the laboratory in the experimental sciences. In order for creationists to disprove evolution, for example, they must reject all these independent lines of evidence and also construct a competing theory that will better explain evolution than evolution. they do not. Instead they only use evidence by way of negation which is phrased like this: "If the evolutionary scientists cannot present a natural explanation for a certain thing, then a supernatural explanation for it must be true."
The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics will always want to be shown: Show me the body of Big Foot. I was shown archeological artifacts from Atlantis. I was shown a word-checking board with all the participants in the seance properly blindfolded. I was shown a square house of Nostradamus that predicted World War II or the 11/XNUMX attacks before (not after) they happened (retrospective predictions don't count in science). I was shown evidence that alternative medicines are more effective than dummy medicines (placebo). Show me an alien or take me to its mothership. I was shown the intelligent planner. Show me God. Show me, and I will believe.
Most people (including scientists) treat the question of God separately from all other claims. They are allowed to do so as long as a certain claim is not examined, even in principle, with scientific eyes. What can be tested? Most religious arguments can be tested through an experiment. For example, prayer has a positive effect on healing. In this case, controlled trials conducted to date have shown no difference between patients who were prayed for and those who were not. And beyond such a controlled study, why does it seem that God only heals diseases that usually go away on their own? To believe I need something unequivocal, like a piece or stump that will grow a new limb. Amphibians can do this. Surely an omnipotent being is capable of doing this. Many war wounded who have returned from Iraq are impatiently waiting for divine action.
There is one mystery that I admit science may not be able to solve: what existed before our universe was formed. One answer is multiverse. According to this theory, many universes had their own beginnings, some of them created progenitor universes (perhaps in the collapse of black holes), and one of these is our universe. There is no positive evidence for this hypothesis, but there is also no positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question: God. And in both cases we are left with the "reduction ad absurdum" question of what preceded the multiverse or God. If God is defined as one that does not have to be created, then why can't the universe (or the multiverse) be defined as one that does not have to be created?
In both cases we are left with only negative evidence that operates on the line of thought of "we can't think of any other explanation," evidence that is no evidence at all. If there is one lesson we have learned from the history of science, it is that we would be arrogant to think that we now know enough to know what we cannot know. And so in the meantime we must make a cognitive or emotional choice between an answer for which the evidence is only negative evidence and the absence of an answer at all. God, the multiverse or the unknown - what you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. And as for me, I am left in awe of the great unknown.
Michael Shermer is the publisher of the journal www.skeptic.com and the author of the book "How We Believe".
34 תגובות
Dawn:
I have a more constructive suggestion.
Instead of changing one word in your words - taking all the sting out of them - change all your words.
It's clear that what you tried to do was to make people think that saying someone is crazy actually means they are a genius.
You say that some of the geniuses were declared crazy at the time.
Which part - in your opinion?
And what part were indeed crazy?
This figure is necessary to see what is the logical conclusion that can be drawn from the declaration of a person as crazy or stupid.
Is the logical conclusion that he is a genius or is the conclusion that he is crazy or stupid?
I'm pretty sure you'd even struggle to find examples of the people you're talking about!
Now for the funny stuff from the last comment.
The quote you gave as an example (first) is a quote exactly from the response you are attacking by saying that it is intended to protect my words at all costs.
That is - the things that the reaction tried to protect at all costs are itself!
Voila - logic of... of... aaa... nothing!
Then you found something else I said (and I still firmly stand behind it) and decided that my words in response 31 were meant to defend him.
This is of course another piece of nonsense because there is no connection between your lie about most geniuses being those who have been declared crazy or stupid and the truth of the claim that there are people who are addicted to conspiracies.
In short - you are just pouring out words, some of which have no content and the other part is a lie.
By the way - do you still see halos of people and plants?
You still refuse to answer me if you are able to see them even in the dark?
Michael:
A. I didn't declare anyone a genius.
B. Every second post of yours declares someone else a fool or a liar.
third. caught up in the semantics of the word majority, so let's replace it with the word "part" so that it will be easier for you to understand.
d. Not every lunatic or fool is a genius
5. You are far from guessing the contents of my memory
Is Michael interested in knowing which of his words he is trying to defend?
Please quote:
"Want to hear the truth?
Most of those who were declared crazy or stupid were indeed crazy or stupid."
End of quote.
Who has the authority to "declare"? To Mr. Michael or maybe to Shahar? Or maybe the New York Times?
I'm quite convinced that every innovative idea by one person is attacked with claims of madness or stupidity by another person (a blogger, a neighbor or just someone).
Want another quote? you are welcome:
"Regarding the conspiracy theories - I guess we all know that there are people whose natural tendency is to believe only in conspiracy theories and never the accepted version"
Well, my argument is that the word conspiracy has worn out and does not serve the purpose in which it is said. I also claim that certain concealments from the public do exist and I even attached a random link to the Wikipedia website that confirms all kinds of actions of the federal government that are not often talked about in the media and it is likely that most people's reaction will be that this is a ridiculous, far-fetched and unrealistic idea.
In addition, I claim that there are many theoretical claims in the present tense that will be proven or flourished in the future, as of today, anyone who claims against diligently and justifies his claims by saying that "but everyone thinks like this..." - is narrow-minded.
Dawn:
My logic is not mine but that of most humans but it seems that it is not your logic after all.
Please come and show me how, according to logic, it would be right to declare me a lunatic or a fool.
I'm just interested in what kind of thoughts vacuum produces.
You said that most of the geniuses of the past were declared crazy or stupid.
This is a gross lie.
As I said - most of those who were declared crazy or stupid (in the age of science - of course I'm not talking about the Middle Ages to which you want to take us back) were indeed like that.
That is why it is both crazy and stupid at the same time to rely on someone being said to be crazy or stupid in order to declare him a genius.
The fact that you now changed your crazy and stupid claim and replaced it with a rhetorical question that means nothing shows that my attempt to guess the content of your memory went well and you really failed to confirm from it the claim that most geniuses were declared stupid or crazy.
I'm interested, by the way, which of my things do you think I'm trying to protect. Have you presented any fact or claim that requires me to defend something I said?
Dress up! But WTF queecny pretender
And if I declare you crazy or stupid? Will it be true?
According to your logic, probably yes.
Did you not understand my meaning? Do you think that everyone who is considered a genius today was also considered so at the time?
Again and again we see the evasion, the attempt to discredit, the mockery and the disdain.
Are you aware of what I am aware of? Do you have access to my memory as it was today?
I guess not, so I'll take your words as they really are:
Pathetic attempt to avoid painful truths and ridiculous justification of your words at any cost.
point:
I responded to your 26th response and it is contrary to the previous one - not only did it not talk about the principle of reasonableness, but it described behavior that is clearly unreasonable in a positive light and behavior that is clearly reasonable in a negative light.
Regarding the experts - you misunderstood.
Dawn:
What a crap!
Most geniuses of previous generations were declared stupid or crazy?
That's a gross lie!
Want to hear the truth?
Most of those who were declared crazy or stupid were indeed crazy or stupid.
Someone erased your memory and replaced it with the opposite of what it was?
WTF
The distance between brave and stupid is small and can only be tested in Diabad.
Most of the geniuses of previous generations were declared crazy or stupid because they did not follow the "logic" of the time.
To declare a person a fool because he does not conform or "make sense" is a slander that indicates a mental disorder.
One of the temporary "victories" of the reality-disrupting memory erasers is to declare all the actions of the federal government a conspiracy, but in fact the word has eroded and lost its meaning.
Please Tip of the Iceberg: Memory Erasure Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
By the way, the institution also has such projects, a work from the 70s.
I mentioned that the plausibility wagon should be preserved. Otherwise it is said that he is just crazy.
And as for the experts, I understand that you are implying that journalists are experts in the physics of history, or that they are professional police detectives.
point:
You're right.
You can claim whatever you want. It's really not a problem.
The question is not what can be claimed but what makes sense to claim.
When a person wants to decide what the truth is about a certain subject, he has two options:
One is to become an expert on the subject and find out all the facts.
The second is to choose which of the experts to believe.
The conversation is not about experts and none of the commenters is an expert on the topics under discussion, so it is obviously about people who have chosen who to believe.
To choose to believe what the vast majority of experts claim is not conformity but a logical bet.
To choose to believe what the vast majority of experts claim is not true - this is not bravery but stupidity.
On the other hand, it can be said that those who believe in many conspiracy theories are generally the types who like action and mystery, are suspicious, etc. And in the same way, those who believe what they are being told in Tiyo, are conformist, etc.
The general argument is incorrect. You can dismiss a lot of things related to scientific matters, for example astrology, Newton's laws, and the way the brain works, you can argue that this is nonsense from the physical side (but works on the business side)
Regarding conspiracy theories, I don't see where scientific principles can be applied to support this or that hypothesis. It is a complex human matter (government, politicians, interests, etc.) and exact science does not deal with it. Therefore it is not scientifically wrong to support one theory or another as long as the principle of probability is preserved.
There are things we know we know.
There are things we know we don't know.
There are things we don't know that we don't know.
80% dark matter in the universe.
20% visible material.
We are currently in our reference only talking about what we see.
From what we see let's say we know 1% and that is an exaggeration.
99% disappear in the equation.
Our limitations are many, from all the angles of vision we have.
Science combined with technology is currently the best of the few we have, to explore and try to understand.
Ron,
There are innocent people, who are ready to swallow any story they are fed. The Internet is full of YouTube clips about aliens, and human and animal abductions, planes that disappear, etc., ships, and grandmother's stories from here until further notice.
And there are countless stories not only about aliens. There are also stories and photographs of ghosts, demons, saints who heal all the sick, people who climb the ladder of heaven, a sea that splits in two, water that turned into wine, and much more.
Carl Sagan wrote such a highly recommended book: "A Haunted World"
What to do Ron dear innocent and gullible, except for stories there is simply nothing.
I suggest you adopt a slightly more critical and skeptical attitude, and stop wasting our time with all kinds of nonsense.
Ron:
I am not surprised that you did not accept the challenge.
After all, in your opinion, the courts are also complicit in the conspiracy, and therefore you will lose the libel suit.
Hanan writes about Shermer's arguments, "There is no research behind them, no sources, and no actual information. It's a shame that Shermer doesn't provide the sources for his arguments." Suri Hanan, Schermer does not make any arguments, therefore rebutting arguments is not relevant. Shermer is just explaining how science works.
Noam, hello to you
I conclude, without digging too much, that there is no pluralism as we think (the number of journalists and media channels).
As part of the examples I gave
You have testimony from a commercial pilot that the entire crew saw a UFO and were debriefed after the flight
You have a NASA employee
You have top secret classified military personnel and more
including producers of nuclear missile bases
Former Canadian Defense Minister
The former astronauts as well
This is their word in front of Noam who shouts through the megaphone "The delusions!!"
Ron,
What is this nonsense?
You present a diagram of economic ownership and conclude that there is control over what is said in the media channels?
And a collection of delusional stories about communicating with extraterrestrials is already proof for you?
There are websites of storytellers, and they have much more fascinating stories than yours and Shahar's.
But anyway, a little humor on this site won't hurt anyone. Just try not to overdo it.
The truth is that I have no intention of entering/starting/causing an ego battle here.
You said yours, I showed what was mine to share.
Let the reading public decide for themselves.
All the best Michael.
It's not a question of faith - it's a matter of looking at the evidence and using common sense.
The only believer is his honor
You made me laugh, Michael, with all due respect - and there is respect
Do they have the last word on the matter?
Want to see how several families control the entire Israeli media?
One PDF page
http://www.the7eye.org.il/articles/Documents/Ownerships0.pdf
One of the beautiful things here is, of course, the widespread confirmation of my claim that those who believe in one conspiracy tend to believe in many conspiracies.
Thank you, dear conspirators, for your cooperation.
Ron:
Please tell me specifically, regarding each of the following people (who disagree with each other on many things), if he is unable to refer to the findings objectively because he is someone's judge.
I want an explicit statement so they can sue you for libel:
Yaron London, Moti Kirschenbaum, Erel Segal, Uri Orbach, Nehemiah Strassler, Yair Lapid, Rafi Ginat.
If you answer this comment I will prepare another list for you, simply to increase the chance that I will find someone willing to deal with you.
Have you ever thought why in all the movies the CIA's best kept secret is who killed Kennedy?
Because the CIA is involved in the murder.
For those who were really interested in the details, found that Oswald could not hurt from the point he was in Kennedy.
In addition, to this day it is not allowed to enter the point from where Oswald "assassinated" Kennedy so that people do not start asking "unnecessary" questions.
The CIA murdered him, I even saw the film that shows his driver shooting him and Gecklin trying to escape from the car after the assassination but a CIA agent runs after the car and puts her back in the car.
I also heard the speech that Kennedy gave to the nation days before he was assassinated, in the speech he talks about a secret society
(secret societies) within the nation and about changes that need to be made.
Kennedy was the ultimate puppet until he decided not to cooperate anymore and so he was assassinated.
For those who don't believe, let them start finding out about the truth instead of believing the FOX network which is controlled by the same small number of capitalists.
Hanan
If you followed the scientist this week, you would have understood that we were in a situation of special coverage, and indeed Tal Inbar gave very interesting reports from South Korea, but due to design considerations, it is impossible to post more than 4 news items a day, so it comes at the expense of other things, but as you can see, the timing of the article is also This one has arrived.
"And the question arises, what does the fact that we were rejected mean?"
Good question !
See response 9
Ron:
I've already had dozens of such debates and I have no interest in another one.
I also saw dozens of films and propaganda presentations by these and other interested parties.
I'm sorry but I'm just fed up.
Since I have no influence anyway - I suggest you try to convince, for example, Yaron London or another media person.
It will probably have an effect on many more people.
On the other hand - I assume that the inventors of this conspiracy have already tried it and the question arises, what does the fact that they were rejected mean?
Regarding free press
One 10-minute clip - some historical information
** Who Really Owns the Mainstream Media?? **
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tn5-uKgkWw
Now, you can dismiss it all as a delusional conspiracy for all the information I have provided - expected.
And don't even look
Or take the data seriously and reconsider.
I've been waiting for at least a week for the article to reach the science website (how expected) - and indeed my 'prayer' was answered 🙂
It is always good to read Shermer as a classic example of presenting arguments, which have no research, no sources, and no actual information behind them. It's a shame that Shermak does not provide the sources for his arguments and prefers to scatter them at his believers.
I would happily try to answer each and every argument individually, but this is not the place and I certainly do not waste energy on populist articles of the quality of "Survival" or the intellectual level of Channel 2. In any case, Schermer is a good source for lectures on "how to sell private/religious information under cover pseudo-scientific".
In any case, those who are interested in developing a dialogue on the subject, are invited to the forum.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Regarding UFOs and aliens
An exposure project is a crossroads for this issue
400 people from the American Industrial Complex testify that there are extraterrestrials, there is contact with them, and there is reverse Hindu technology
Everything is summarized on one page with links in Hebrew
http://www.emetaheret.org.il/wiki/doku.php?id=disclosure_project_על_פרוייקט_חשיפה
Dear Mr. Rothschild
Open your eyes and enough with the mantra
Regarding Rabin's murder - one lecture
You decide what is a conspiracy theory and what really happened
http://www.youtube.com/user/rabinmurder#p/c/13BD6773AF968DA2/0/pMQGElJiCD4
As Yehuda commented, there is a (small) wording problem here, and this is because a scientific theory (whatever it is and not just the cosmological principle that some people hate so much) can never be proven.
The author's intention, when he writes "it will be proven otherwise" is obviously that many experiments will be carried out that will confirm the hypothesis.
Regarding the conspiracy theories - I guess we all know that there are people whose natural tendency is to believe only in conspiracy theories and never in the accepted version (which, by the way, in the enlightened world, is not the product of government publications. In this world there is a free press, free scientists and engineers, etc. and the "accepted version" is a conclusion of this whole and not a fibrok of some government that always lies as some people tend to think).
I think the author meant these people.
By the way, in the matter of JFK, if we take as an example the commenter who referred to the matter, then it is clear that he has no way of getting all the information on the matter. Therefore, the question arises, what makes him prefer the conspiracy version over the accepted version?
And what about the murder of Rabin or the drowning of Rafol? It seems to me that a famous person cannot die at all without a conspiracy theory being woven around his death.
It should be understood that conspiracies with many participants are something whose chances of success in a democratic society are almost zero because there will always be someone who will defect and expose the media to the hidden information.
Great article!
What is the connection between all the beautiful things listed and connection theories? Implicitly, there is a comparison here between science - which agrees to only accept clearly observed evidence and government propaganda that only presents the truth that is convenient for it.
For example, there is an interesting disdain for JFK next to Big Foot, and in fact the comparison is between those who believe in the mythological creature and anyone who does not accept the official version of the assassination of the president. So let's go into detail briefly: the official version talks about a lone eccentric assassin who kills the president for personality reasons. I am of course not particularly interested in this case but as a general example.
Let's say I don't accept the official version and ask who really murdered him or alternatively I agree with the official version about the killer but not with the reason. In the course of my interest I will be able to find more elements that do not agree with the official version and perhaps also make assumptions about what really happened. Hypotheses that will be based on the question of who benefited from the act. Of course, even in such a case I have to be critical and reject hypotheses that are proven to be wrong, certainly this does not mean that he asks me to come up with new hypotheses.
The author of the article puts me in the same category as the parapsychologists, even though my approach is the scientific approach. On the other hand, the approach of those who unquestioningly accept the official position is actually a religious approach in which government reports replace the Holy Scriptures.
Nice article, but what, the post-modernists, the New Age people, the believers in God and their ilk, those who believe in conspiracies, those who are convinced that humans and aliens are visiting us and their ilk - will not understand the article and will stick to their positions.
There is a certain innocence when a sentence is said in the article:-
"Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that every claim we investigate is false until proven otherwise." End quote.
How, then, will the claim underlying the cosmological principle that says:-
"What is true here is also true there, in the other parts of the universe"?
After all, they never proved it and they will never be able to prove it, therefore, according to what is written in the sentence quoted from the article, this claim is not true. We simply accept it because we are comfortable with such a claim, because we believe it to be true, but proofs for all possible cases? We do not have, and we cannot have.
Even if we prove that all the things we have tested so far there at the edge of the universe would justify the claim quoted from the article. Because you cannot assume that everything in the future will justify the cosmological principle.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda