Thread: What is Science?

Yeah, I think I went a little overboard with the point.

I have a habit at looking directly at the data when someone makes an extraordinary claim, but not with further logical elaborations of generally accepted science. So, to rephrase, if the idea is seemingly controversial, then one should do his/her utmost to investigate the idea's data, or at least have another who understands it (but is impartial to it) to have a look at it. I certainly wouldn't expect people to look directly at data which is a logical extension of surrounding evidence-based ideas.

Still, in the scientific domain, the specific person making the claim shouldn't matter too much. One should focus on whether it's controversial, then decide what to do.

There are a few quantum scientists that make controversial claims when attempting to meld the pinnacle of meditation or, say, the Tao with the 'unified field'. People accept it mostly based on the fact the guy is a quantum physicist and has qualifications to show for it....not good, not good.

John Hagelin and Michio Kaku being the slightly dodgy ones. Admittedly, what they say is very interesting given it's an attempt combine metaphysics and physics, which is why it's a good hook. And how they present it follows through reasonable, 'logical' steps, it is just a matter of whether the premises are true.