That's like saying you can't be a movie critic unless you've directed a movie or that you can't write a blog post on Santa impersonators unless you've been one. In other words, an extremely poor argument and an appeal to authority to boot.
An appeal to impartiality. I’d rather have my data checked by someone who doesn’t have an agenda. When a scientist submits a paper for publication, it goes to peer review. Someone who works in the same field looks it over – and yes, they are looking for flaws. That’s their job. They are not, however, starting with the premise that the entire subject is a load of cobblers. They look for missing details, and if they find any, they send the paper back with notes. It’s a useful procedure since it’s easy to miss something when you’re immersed in an experiment.
The scientist then responds by plugging the gaps – further experimentation to cover the details raised by the reviewer. Or, if the reviewer has misread the work, the scientist revises the paper and points this out on resubmission. It might come back again with more notes. Getting a paper into print can be a long process, and nobody else knows anything about it until it’s in print.
If someone sends data to Randi, it’s in the public domain immediately. He’ll find a flaw, publicise it, and that’s that.
I have nothing against the man, really. It’s his million dollars and he can impose whatever conditions he likes on who he gives it to. But it’s not peer-reviewed science, it’s not a publication in Nature by any means. It’s a competition. I’m not interested. Why blow any chance of a Nobel prize by throwing something so momentous into the public domain, without proper peer review? No, a million isn't enough for that.
Lastly, I simply don't believe that you (or anyone) would pass up USD 1 million if all that was a required was to complete the cc field in an email. I hope that you don't mind me calling you on this one.
Well, let’s put it in perspective. A million dollars sounds like a lot of money. That’s about 500,000 UK pounds. Still sounds a lot. Houses in the cities of the UK routinely go for more than that. I can’t retire on that amount of money – not at 5% interest less tax, national insurance etc. These days, half a million pounds is, say, a small house in a village somewhere and a good second-hand car. Not much change left to live on.
To get it, I’d have to dump all my carefully-accumulated scientific ideals and enter a public competition. A competition where the judge wants me to fail. I’m not interested. If I ever find proof, I’ll go through proper scientific review channels.
It's rather more than sending an Email. Should I ever find real proof, and I might never get it, it will represent years of work. Years of sitting in cold and miserable locations, and most of the time with nothing to show for it. Years of being told I'm a crackpot for trying. I'm not going to hand over the results of all that work to a publicity-grabbing competition. Does that sound snooty? Perhaps it is, but I'll leave that million dollars on the table anyway. It's not why I'm doing this, and it's not what I expect to get at the end of it - if there is an end.
5 comments:
Well, Rom, kick ass! This is a fascinating debate. You remind me of one of my dearest friends in college, who was a philosophy major. I couldn't say anything ridiculous around her (even my usual ridiculous things) because she would question them and dismantle them until I ended up squirming and exposed in all my idiocy.
I'm not, by the way, insinuating that anyone here is an idiot. I'm merely observing that you and this Diicki person are both very insightful and clever people. This is like watching a tennis match, played with brains.
Woo woo!
Hi Greeny
I'm enjoying this debate, not least because it's staying civil. Too many of this kind of exchange end up with abuse.
Dikkii raises valid questions - and if any branch of science can't answer a question, then there's work to do. I doubt I'll convert Dikkii from his stance, and I'm not going to try. As I see it, my own work benefits from people asking difficult questions. They tell me where the weak spots in theories are, and where to concentrate effort.
It might sound odd, but if there were no skeptics, there'd be no progress. In any field of research. It's the skeptics who shout 'Prove it' that force the scientist to work harder, to do just that.
Hi Greeny, I don't normally get described as having brains much. Normally I get described as having a puerile fascination with vegetables. So I'll take that as a compliment.
Hello Rom. You were well advanced on this, I must admit. And I agree that there's too much to be included in a comment.
I thought I'd start with this:
An appeal to impartiality.
I've looked here and here, and I can't find this particular logical fallacy. Could you tell me whether it's known as something else?
I’d rather have my data checked by someone who doesn’t have an agenda.
OK. Now we have an appeal to motive - this may not in itself be a fallacious argument, however, Randi has deliberately (and explicitly) made every step of the Randi Challenge transparent in order to ensure that this allegation can never be made.
In any event, if you adhered to the rules and were successfully able to show evidence for "the paranormal" the rules are quantitatively objective enough that Randi would be forced to hand over the prize. Read the rules. Pick it apart. You'll see what I mean.
Someone who works in the same field looks it over – and yes, they are looking for flaws. That’s their job. They are not, however, starting with the premise that the entire subject is a load of cobblers.
Not really relevant - you have a signed agreement between the JREF and yourself. If there are no flaws and Randi refuses to pay up, then you have a case in contract against him. Again, Randi's rules are pretty clear on this.
In fact, I'd put it to you that you would have a harder time passing peer-review than winning Randi's challenge.
If someone sends data to Randi, it’s in the public domain immediately. He’ll find a flaw, publicise it, and that’s that.
And what's wrong with that? It simply means that no paranormal activity was demonstrated.
Oh, it's the "public domain" that you're worried about. Well, I'm not sure why this would be a problem...
I have nothing against the man, really. It’s his million dollars and he can impose whatever conditions he likes on who he gives it to. But it’s not peer-reviewed science, it’s not a publication in Nature by any means. It’s a competition. I’m not interested. Why blow any chance of a Nobel prize by throwing something so momentous into the public domain, without proper peer review? No, a million isn't enough for that.
...unless, of course, you're worried about public failure. Look, I can understand this, but if you have evidence, I can tell you this right now: Consider Randi and the judges that YOU pick to be your peer-reviewers. If your evidence passes their peer-review and wins the challenge, then there is a Nobel Prize with your name on it.
That I can comfortably guarantee.
Perhaps it is, but I'll leave that million dollars on the table anyway. It's not why I'm doing this, and it's not what I expect to get at the end of it - if there is an end.
I'm not going to call you on this, this time. You appear to be curiously opposed to an easy million USD for some extraordinarily weak reasons, but that's OK. Some would say that to do this, you would either have to be quite wealthy yourself and earning lots, or completely out of your gourd.
I'm not going to make that call either. But what I will do is this: Can I have the evidence you've compiled? I'd rather like Randi's money. I promise that I'll keep your name secret, as you don't appear to want to go near the public domain?
You can then complete your research and, at an agreed date in the future, we can go public with our agreement where you get the Nobel Prize and I get Randi's money.
And if I fail Randi's challenge, I cop the public humiliation.
I can't see anything fairer than that. Whaddaya say?
Whoops. Forgot to mention - please don't take this personally, but I marked you down for some points that I felt could have been stronger and some that could have been more relevant.
And, because I'm a bit of a capitalist (and materialist) hypocrite, I felt a strong sense of blasphemy by you turning down USD 1 million.
1 1/2 stars.
Hi Dikkii
Another long response, I'm afraid. I'll post it...
I'd guessed you were a materialist, with all that talk of usefulness. I don't think I am, but I do have an almost obscene collection of gadgets.
Post a Comment