Some People Don’t Like Science









Try this thought experiment:













Arse elbow illustration 3



7 responses to “Some People Don’t Like Science

  1. Hi, I had originally started to write a comment here but it got longer so I’ve written it as a post on my blog here:


  2. Science is not dogmatic, *scientists* are dogmatic.

    *Scientists* (not science) don’t accept the paranormal is real, not because it’s untestable, but because of the new way of thinking inaugurated by the mechanistic philosophy heralding the birth of modern science in the 17th Century. So anything disobeying this philosophy is deemed an extraordinary claim.

    The existence of consciousness has no theory either. Indeed it cannot *in principle* be explained by science, at least not as science is currently conceived. Do you also disbelieve in the existence of consciousness?

    Why is the web full of dimwitted “skeptics” pontificating on stuff which they clearly have no knowledge or understanding of. And I include the likes of Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins and other top scientists, who might be good at science but should leave philosophy well alone.



    Ian you are being dishonest. There are many theories of consciousness and a great deal of research in modern neuroscience on this subject:

    Just because science does not understand everything about consciousness, there is no need to put magic in the gap. Regards.


  4. The two comments above expose the irrational thinking that this post seeks to repudiate.

    Dealing first with Hayley Stevens and her blog post. There is a very good reason why paranormal claims fail to make it into accepted scientific circles; lack of evidence. The whole area of the paranormal is littered with extraordinary claims, not one of which has survived scrutiny. She refers to Professor Richard Wiseman, and he has successfully debunked many paranormal claims. Not every one of course, but that’s simply because many just don’t warrant detailed investigation. And the point about the claims isn’t that they may be true. Yes they could perhaps be true, but if there is an alternative explanation, as their appears always to be in properly researched instances, then it is wrong to assume that the paranormal explanation is the true one. The first scientist to prove a paranormal event will become world renowned and would probably win a Nobel prize. So if and when science confirms a paranormal event then you can be sure it’s real. Up until then I’m afraid it’s a no show.

    As for Ian Wardell, I’m afraid equally shaky ground. Scientists who are dogmatic aren’t proper scientists. A dogmatic scientist is one who will very quickly be refuted, exposed as being second rate, and rapidly consigned to the scrap heap.

    I’ve dealt with the paranormal comment above so won’t repeat.

    But the consciousness comment is just plain uninformed. Have you not read anything recently on evolution? What on earth do you mean that ‘consciousness has no theory’. There are many theories, it’s just you seem not to have checked them out. We evolved from very primitive life forms, into what we are today. Consciousness is clearly part of that process.

    Lastly your comment about philosophy. I actually think you mean ‘metaphysics’, and I think you’d find little support for your ideas from any scientist, never mind Dawkins or Hawking. Philosophy is needed when you need to decide on something where science has taken you as far as it can; for example, abortion, the death penalty, or immigration policies. Metaphysics is pretend science that says paranormal claims should be treated as proper science. Fine, then let them stand the test of observation, testability, repeatability, and all the other things science requires.

    Actually scientists have shown themselves to be more than able when it comes to philosophy. Indeed, whereas it is virtually impossible for a lay person to engage in meaningful debate with a qualified scienctist on matters of science, in matters of philosophy it is easy for an intelligent person to engage in any debate. For example, in theology the only real qualification is perhaps the history of religion and the languages of original texts, and it is frequently the case that ‘qualified’ theologians struggle with the actual philosophy when debating with people they would regard as not qualified.

    Scientists are more and more challenging the status quo of the established philosophically accepted cultural mores. Indeed Jerry Coyne has recently moved the debate on in a most profound way in his book ‘Faith versus Fact’ which challenges the accommodationist idea that science and religion are compatible. Oh no they are not.

    Liked by 1 person


      When I read claims like this, I recognize someone who either has not actually read the relevant studies, or who views every scientific success as real success by honest people, and without evidence regards every successful parapsychological study as an unproven exercise in collusion, conspiracy, and cheating by the participants. Some people don’t like science when it disagrees with their preconceptions.


    • Geoff Benson

      Sorry Michael D, but you are distorting the arguments. Paranormality studies have not succeeded in providing evidence of anything paranormal; indeed metaphysics generally is a redundant term. You are right that people don’t like science when it disagrees with pre-conceptions but, and this is the point, proper science has no pre-conceptions. Don’t confuse reasonably held conclusions, reached via evidence, with pre-conceptions. So to claim that science is wrong to refuse to acknowledge the evidence of paranormal phenomena is lazy; bad thinking, to quote the title of the blog. If it wants to be accept as science then it needs much better evidence than so far it has provided.

      As for Dean Radin….oh dear


  5. Hayley,

    I think you missed the point of the post, so let me see if I can clarify my position for you.

    I call my blog Bad Thinking because the promoters of, and believers in, the paranormal rely on various reasoning fallacies to support their beliefs. The example I focused on in this post was a contradiction that is hardly uncommon.

    Personally, I have no disagreement with people who are doing research into what they believe to be paranormal phenomena; if any of them can prove the existence of any aspect of their research, that’s fine by me because it would open up a whole new field of science. I’m all for that, and I wouldn’t begrudge any of them their Nobel Prize for discovering a hitherto unknown force of nature.

    In the meantime, they will have to produce evidence that stands up to scrutiny; claiming that they can’t get a foothold in mainstream science because science is dogmatic and unchanging, whilst also implying that science is wrong or doesn’t know much because it’s always changing, is not good reasoning. Actually, it is Bad Thinking.

    People who believe in ghosts and suchlike certainly don’t like science, at least when science rejects their unsubstantiated beliefs. I don’t think it’s patronising to point that out. But the believers are dogmatic, and their beliefs are strongly resistant to change; pointing that out is not an insult, it is a fact – even if some of them see it as an insult.

    You say that parapsychology is “only rejected by those who dismiss it a priori.” Talk about generalising! But you are wrong; I don’t reject parapsychology a priori, I reject it a posteriori. Parapsychology infers the existence of the paranormal simply on the basis that it can’t find a natural explanation for anomalistic phenomena. It certainly has no theory (in the scientific sense of the word), and researchers like Richard Wiseman and Chris French, that you mentioned, have been unable to replicate any of the claims made in that area. At best, parapsychologists have shown that there is maybe, perhaps, sometimes, possibly, at some level, if you want to go along with it, something anomalous going on, but they have not demonstrated the existence of anything like “psychic energy,” or whatever they want to call it. I recommend that you read Chris French’s book, Anomalistic Psychology – it’s very good (I know it’s good because I reviewed it for the Association for Skeptical Enquiry’s magazine, The Skeptical Intelligencer).

    When I said that science is not dogmatic but changes in response to new discoveries, I was referring to science as a whole, without reference to individual scientists. Some scientists and some sceptics have let the side down, but they don’t get any special concessions from me. In fact, I wrote a post here about fraud committed by a scientist and a well-known sceptic:

    But I have never said or implied that parapsychology is wrong because of a few examples of fraudulent research either; I think that parapsychology is just barking up the wrong tree. In any case, there is still not a single thing parapsychologists have produced that has become part of mainstream science and, yes, they still claim that’s because of scientific dogma. Or because science is always changing because it can’t make its mind up.
    Choose whichever excuse suits you.

    As you say, all that matters is that the science is good, open to replication and that personal biases are not able to influence it. I already know that, but I think you should be telling that to the paranormal researchers.

    You think I’m judgemental? What do you think you are, by the way?


Leave a Reply to Ian Wardell Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s