Things scientists have dismissed

By -


"A good example is provided by meteorites. Eighteenth-century English and French scientists rejected the ample testimony as to the reality of meteorites, as we reject stories of alien abduction. On 13 September 1768 a large meteorite fell... [in] Pays de la Loire. Numerous people (all of them peasants) saw it fall. Three members of the Royal Academy of Sciences (including young Lavoisier) were sent to investigate. They concluded that lightning had struck a lump of sandstone on the ground; the idea of rocks falling from outer space was simply ridiculous." -- David Wootton, The Invention of Science, p. 301

Comments

  1. Prateek3:39 PM

    I think they were right to make that conclusion at that point of time.

    A large number of people can attest an event. But human attestation is not evidence. Or at least highly reliable evidence. People testify to all sort of things, including weeping statues. In large numbers too. Just because they attest to it does not make it true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:26 AM

      Yes, maybe they were.

      However, the ONLY form of evidence is "human attestation." What else in the world could we possibly point to?

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell12:48 AM

      In reply to Gene: How do you figure that last part?

      Delete
    3. gcallah12:51 AM

      Well, name something that doesn't involve human attestation that we can point to as evidence!

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell12:59 AM

      DNA, photos, business records, fingerprints, and so forth seem like evidence without "human attestation".

      Delete
    5. gcallah4:56 PM

      So, DNA just enters itself in the court record? Fingerprints carry a criminal off to prison on their own, with no other human involvement?

      Samson, for a fingerprint to be evidence in a court of law, someone must ATTEST to the facts that:
      1) This fingerprint was found at the crime scene; and
      2) This fingerprint, in fact, belongs to Samson.

      Delete
  2. Prateek3:46 AM

    OK, maybe I meant to say human testimony?

    Unless you see the evidence yourself, can you truly rely on the word of other people?

    In New Delhi, there was an outbreak of mass histeria, when people began claiming to see a "monkeyman". Many many people claimed so, but no conclusive photograph or remains of a monkeyman were ever found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:48 AM

      I'm not saying we accept testimony uncritically. I'm saying ultimately it is all we have. (Including one's own testimony.)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more