Talk but not walk?

amg56,

I understand that, to some extent, but my puzzle is this "empirical testing lab". I have a feeling there is something wrong with that name. It seems like something constructed to impress, but I may be wrong. What you describe has been the gripe of this thread from about the time I first noticed this "empirical testing" business which was as early as on day 1. I doubt there will ever be a peace treaty signed between two fiercely-opposed sides, but I continue reading. There are worthwhile and interesting things spread in between hard statements and intermittent insults.

glupson,

I think you are right to smell a fish with the use of "empirical testing" in this thread, especially as it seems to be used by MG and his followers.

As I have pointed out several times: broadly speaking virtually any inferences we derive from from our experience is "empirical."

The problem is, because words like "empirical" and "testing" are so often associated with science, you see those words being adduced by any number of pseudo sciences, or fringe idea claims, in a way that elides and obscures between good methodology and simply "trying it out for yourself."

There is a world of difference between any number of empirical inferences and good methodology that yields reliable results; that’s why the scientific method arose.

Flat earthers are being "empirical" in their inferences from experience: "You can use your sense of sight to easily see the world is flat!" And they are performing all sorts of "tests" and "experiments" to confirm their flat earth theory. But the problem is their assumptions are poor, and do not build on the back of gained knowledge through reliable methods, and their tests are poorly designed, and they draw bad inferences that ignore all sorts of other interpretations and contra-indicative evidence to their belief.

We always get the common refrain around here: "Just try it for yourself and if it works it works - and if you haven’t done your own test, you have no grounds on which to speak about it."

What this misses is that the very same response is given by virtually every single fringe claim in existence - whether it’s a religion, cult, a new age healing method, psychics, astrology, flat earth, faith healers, you name it. EVERYONE thinks they are being empirical and they think you can test their claims personally. That is, after all, how all those people come to their beliefs in the first place.

The fact that "trying it for yourself" can lead to virtually ANY belief, no matter how outlandish, ought to be a clue about it’s inherent unreliability - that there is something fundamentally not addressed in such an idea.
That is, of course, human imagination.

People rarely accept the power of human imagination when it comes to their own beliefs. Sure, all those other wacky beliefs - those are delusions, bias etc. But not MINE! You see...I have Personal Experience so I can’t be wrong!

The scientific method was a long, extremely hard-won struggle because we are all so easy to fool, and as Feynman said: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

The tiniest slip up in experimental rigour and...you’ve "discovered" cold fusion or faster than light particles (see the "Opera experiment" debacle).

Does this mean it’s my view that we all have to be scientists in everything we are doing and claiming? Of course not; it’s not practical to demand that of everything we do. But I believe we should at least scale our beliefs and claims to the quality of the evidence we have.

And one doesn’t need direct experience with a tweak to point out when someone is making claims that don’t scale with the quality of the evidence, and theory, they are espousing. Lots and lots of people saying the same thing, if based on recognizably unreliable methods of inference, don’t add up to a good argument.

amg56,

I certainly agree you are asking the right questions.

And those questions are being evaded.  Which is fishy.