reply to post by DragonSpirit2
No, and I've never said there was anything "wrong" with discussion of or even belief in this claim (although there is a distinction between a belief
and a fact, of course.) This is ATS. This is the place to discuss things of this nature. But to suggest that skeptics challenging and questioning such
things, especially in the Science and Technology forum, is somehow out of character or inappropriate for ATS is incorrect in my opinion. If that
wasn't your suggestion when asking "what are you even doing here?" then please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your intentions.
As to the validity of the study, I'm a tad more liberal than my fellow skeptics: in my opinion it's not about peer reviewed journals
. But I
have to disagree with you that peer review itself (regardless of whether it's in an established journal) isn't required to confirm something as
"true," especially when detailed methodology isn't available for the given claim. I've said several times in my posts in this topic that something
does not necessarily have to be reviewed in a prestigious journal to be true or scientifically valid. What it does have to do however is provide
reproducible methodology so that even if it isn't in said journals, it can be reproduced and verified by someone
in a scientific field. That's
what "peer review" means, regardless of what journal or other medium the work is published in (as I said earlier, there is such a thing as
lay-research and self-publishing): other scientists reproducing their method and confirming or challenging their results. That's how science works.
This experiment doesn't provide those method details. That's the reason for people's skepticism. As another poster pointed out, even in science you
rarely ever have 100% proof without at least some slight - however ostensibly improbable - potential for error or alternative
possibilities/explanations. And that is true. (Especially philosophically.) But for something to be scientifically
valid, it must follow the
scientific method and it must provide detailed, reproducible methodology so that it can be tested by others.
It's always possible that they did exactly that and that they simply have not provided the aforementioned methodology. I'm open to that possibility,
and I'm hopeful that they will. That's all skeptics want. It's not about someone prestigious reviewing it, or about it appearing in a prestigious peer
reviewed journal. Nor is it about looking down our skeptical noses at something amazing, or being un-enlightened, or close-minded. It's about someone,
somewhere, being able to verifiably
review, reproduce, and confirm these results. The more the better. Prestigious peer reviewed journals
can and do
lend credibility, if only because they're a mass facilitator of that kind of review and confirmation (or challenge.) But they aren't
for something to be credible. What are
necessary are method, reproduction, and confirmation. That hasn't happened.
No detailed method has been provided.
Therefore on what basis are we to accept this as true without some separate corroborating confirmation, or at least a detailed description of the
method, techniques, measurements, and tools used?
That's all we're saying. Peace.
edit on 1/14/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo