It could be argued that your statement: some arguments and theories are just so dumb that they deserve little more than a horse laugh...has no place in science.

The traditional response is for me to say I have a pet unicorn in my back yard. Will you give this the same weight as the claim that I have a pet dog? Is there a need to try to "prove it beyond a shadow of doubt"?

And thats also what it means to say "it is up to the claimant to provide evidence, not the skeptic to disprove it". If someone makes a claim that does not appear to fit in with the world as it is known must show the value and truth of their claim or be ignored. If they refuse to go away or make a case then people start to point and giggle. That is as it should be.

I simply do not have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you can't explore subatomic particles via astral projection. That protons are not torus shaped. That John Bell did not make a simple math error in deriveing Bell's inequality. That some people can talk to dead people. That Zak can kill people with his mind power. That the earth is only 7000 years old. That there was a world wide flood a few thousand years ago.

Some things just do not pass the smell test.

This is actually very rare in the modern scientific world. Most new theories in science are wrong and are quickly shown to be wrong without any laughing being involved. Most new theories that are accepted are accepted fairly quickly. Even the very strange ones like relativity and QM.

Thank goodness there are people who are willing to disagree with the status quo.

Disagreeing with the status quo is not a virtue. Only being right and being able to show you are right are. Also people willing to disagree with the status quo are not in short supply. People who do so intelligently are.

Have you read David Brin's essay on the doctrine of otherness? He claims that societies have doctrines by which they live. For example in South America they have a doctrine of machiesmo. This has a good side in that it incourages self reliance, strength and courage. The down side is that women are often very poorly treated.

His point was the west has a doctrine of otherness in that we give special attention to ideas outside the mainstream. As a change from the absolute obedience to the authority of the king or church it is a good thing. Democracy rather than authoritarianism. But it has a dark side. We routinely give credence to ideas and theories that just do not warrant it. Then we invent the conspiricy theory to explain why these ideas are not accepted by "the powers that be".

As an ugly example near my home town there was one of those satanic child molesting ring cases. No evidence and no case ever went to trial. They would have but the Texas attorney general moved in and shut the thing down. One of the children removed from his family is now in a coma due to his foster parents tough love. The foster parents committed suicide. Many more lives were ruined. Some people there still believe in a satanic cult that reaches all the way up to the governor. The grand jury that indicted a police officer on no evidence was asked by the attorney general to remove that indictment. They refused.

Paul Parnell

Last edited 8^th January 2002 by Russell