It seems rodman99999 can’t or won’t answer direct questions clearly for some reason.
So this is for others...
As I’ve written before, it’s typical for believers in dubious claims, under pressure from skepticism, to fall back on classic responses as a defense.To the psueodoscienfic ear they sound robust and profound. To the more careful thinker familiar with the logic of empirical inquiry, they are recognized as irrelevant fluff.
Rodman99999 has provided typical examples.
Scientists have been wrong before:
rodman99999: I’ve mentioned elsewhere, on the ’GoN: If the world’s best inventors, throughout human history, hadn’t ignored, "scientists", naysayers and scoffers (such as some of those, above): we’d still be living in a relative Stone Age, with respect to technology.
ie: When the steam locomotive was invented: the day’s best, "scientists" claimed man couldn’t survive speeds in excess of 20 MPH!
Interesting, that most of the electrical theories their ilk espouses, came from the same century (the 1800’s).
And anyone currently with a patent on their perpetual motion machine (there are tons) will make the same "point." "Scientists of the day scoffed at X, but they were wrong, weren’t they!"
But of course, this is irrelevant. We are always in a position of relying on the best established science we have. If you want to make a new claim or overturn current well-justified science, you have to actually produce BETTER science, that is produce evidence/theory rigorous enough to justify your claims, especially if this overturns or extends current science.
So in the face of skepticism raising the fact any scientist or science was later understood to be incorrect or incomplete does ZERO to provide any credibility or justification for your current claim.
But since this *sounds* like it’s making some profound, important, educated point relevant to a dubious claim, it’s just what you find in people thinking pseudo scientifically.
Science doesn’t know everything:
That science has not yet provided us the means (tests or measurements) to explain why many of us hear the things we do, with the choices we make, in fuses, cables, etc: doesn’t mean we don’t.
Again, just like above. To the psuedoscientific ear that sounds like some substantial reply. But it’s empty for the same reasons as above.
One may as well say "Science hasn’t the means to falsify the claim that aliens with unknown technology from an unknown dimension are manipulating my dreams." Well..strictly speaking, yeah. But that’s not how rationality works. If you have some novel, interesting, controversial or extraordinary claim, it’s up to YOU to provide POSITIVE evidence that a rational person should consider it plausible, much less demonstrated.Countless people think they have extraordinary powers and fall back on "just because it may not be established scientifically doesn’t mean I don’t have these powers!" It’s the go-too "point" of flakes and crack-pots the world over.
And it’s question-begging: to say "I hear the things I do and just because science can’t measure it doesn’t mean I don’t," is typically the exact claim under dispute. Often, someone making this claim provides no actual good evidence they "hear the things they think they hear" to begin with! Nothing that allows us to distinguish the claim from their own imagination.
And finally, the appeal to Quantum Mechanics rears it’s head:
"My position has always been: with what we’ve learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons."
Yet when rodman is asked for any example actually relevant to anything he "hears" in his system...he punts back to "just saying it’s POSSIBLE." Whooooooo! And down the rabbit hole we go.
It’s precisely this cloud of irrelevance and mush that you see in defense of every goofy claim under the sun. "I believe I have this power or experience, and it’s not validated by known science...but it’s POSSIBLE...because scientists have been wrong, science doesn’t know everything, and...Quantum Mechanics!!!!"
Look...the claim that it’s POSSIBLE is something that can be justified to show it is actually PLAUSIBLE and a REASONABLE explanation based on science. As in "this audio tweak changing the sound is POSSIBLE based on this theory and this robust evidence." In which case: show some bloody examples for why we should think so.
Or someone is just using "possible" in the utterly empty sense of "logically possible" in the sense you can make up statements that "science hasn’t strictly disproved." Like "I can hear angels singing on Mile's Davis' Kinda Blue recording. Prove me wrong. Except you can't just use science, because it's been wrong before and even if you come up with a test, I can just say your test isn't sensitive enough to detect what I claim to hear!"
It’s deflection: the fall back of psuedoscientific cranks.
