1 00:00:15,190 --> 00:00:11,470 oh stop thinking them 2 00:00:17,349 --> 00:00:15,200 and coming from a super-duper very 3 00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:17,359 rigorous military background and is 4 00:00:20,909 --> 00:00:19,730 really one of the foremost leaders in 5 00:00:24,339 --> 00:00:20,919 remote-viewing 6 00:00:27,249 --> 00:00:24,349 thank you I appreciate it so full 7 00:00:31,210 --> 00:00:27,259 disclosure upfront I just finished this 8 00:00:33,250 --> 00:00:31,220 PowerPoint in the very recent past so I 9 00:00:37,060 --> 00:00:33,260 may be as surprised as what turns up as 10 00:00:39,490 --> 00:00:37,070 you are and of course I have to first 11 00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:39,500 master the technology here too this is 12 00:00:43,660 --> 00:00:42,290 for this is a reverse this is neutral oh 13 00:00:45,459 --> 00:00:43,670 never mind okay 14 00:00:51,099 --> 00:00:45,469 what makes scientific evidence 15 00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:51,109 scientific okay so many of you have 16 00:00:54,880 --> 00:00:52,730 probably encountered skeptics and 17 00:00:57,009 --> 00:00:54,890 critics and people who are dubious about 18 00:00:59,439 --> 00:00:57,019 this all the subject matter that we deal 19 00:01:03,369 --> 00:00:59,449 with here and they will say there is no 20 00:01:05,139 --> 00:01:03,379 evidence for what you believe often 21 00:01:06,910 --> 00:01:05,149 times you do get some who actually 22 00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:06,920 believe that most of these are 23 00:01:11,410 --> 00:01:08,690 uninformed skeptics who actually haven't 24 00:01:14,350 --> 00:01:11,420 done any looking into the debate at all 25 00:01:17,290 --> 00:01:14,360 much less surveyed what what evidence 26 00:01:19,559 --> 00:01:17,300 there is what most people who say this 27 00:01:21,580 --> 00:01:19,569 mean though is something along lines of 28 00:01:24,580 --> 00:01:21,590 there's no evidence that isn't 29 00:01:28,210 --> 00:01:24,590 controversial or there's no evidence 30 00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:28,220 that I will accept or there's no 31 00:01:33,969 --> 00:01:30,770 evidence that is scientifically 32 00:01:36,309 --> 00:01:33,979 respectable essentially the evidence for 33 00:01:42,370 --> 00:01:36,319 ESP or whatever cyma dalit II you want 34 00:01:46,389 --> 00:01:42,380 to consider it just isn't scientific so 35 00:01:47,919 --> 00:01:46,399 this is of course at root a major 36 00:01:49,270 --> 00:01:47,929 component of the argument about 37 00:01:50,469 --> 00:01:49,280 demarcation that is how do you 38 00:01:53,620 --> 00:01:50,479 distinguish between science and 39 00:01:55,660 --> 00:01:53,630 pseudoscience and no matter how much how 40 00:01:57,729 --> 00:01:55,670 hard they try philosophers of science 41 00:01:59,859 --> 00:01:57,739 and mainstream scientists haven't 42 00:02:02,229 --> 00:01:59,869 successfully come up with a criteria 43 00:02:04,059 --> 00:02:02,239 that can divide those two out and it's 44 00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:04,069 doubtful that they ever will partly 45 00:02:07,809 --> 00:02:05,690 because of course that today's 46 00:02:12,550 --> 00:02:07,819 pseudoscience is tomorrow science in 47 00:02:16,270 --> 00:02:12,560 many cases so recognizing that we have 48 00:02:18,369 --> 00:02:16,280 an issue of this I was thinking about 49 00:02:21,670 --> 00:02:18,379 the fact that we don't have any 50 00:02:23,630 --> 00:02:21,680 specialized criteria for what counts as 51 00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:23,640 evidence 52 00:02:29,700 --> 00:02:27,370 with my next lady oh yeah so we don't 53 00:02:33,060 --> 00:02:29,710 have a checklist of attributes that when 54 00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:33,070 we produce a set of evidence we say well 55 00:02:38,700 --> 00:02:36,730 this evidence is scientific it and and 56 00:02:42,660 --> 00:02:38,710 maybe another set of evidence isn't 57 00:02:45,270 --> 00:02:42,670 scientific so what would be the value of 58 00:02:49,830 --> 00:02:45,280 having a checklist so if you think about 59 00:02:52,530 --> 00:02:49,840 it instead of having this criteria to 60 00:02:54,690 --> 00:02:52,540 determine what scientific evidence is 61 00:02:56,670 --> 00:02:54,700 that is we know it when we see it and 62 00:02:59,640 --> 00:02:56,680 some of you may remember where that 63 00:03:01,320 --> 00:02:59,650 phrase comes from in the past people say 64 00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:01,330 well it's nice ient if ik evidence but 65 00:03:05,850 --> 00:03:03,010 this is scientific evidence well you say 66 00:03:09,870 --> 00:03:05,860 well okay so what distinguishes one set 67 00:03:11,850 --> 00:03:09,880 of evidence from another we can have 68 00:03:15,420 --> 00:03:11,860 instead a set of criteria against which 69 00:03:16,890 --> 00:03:15,430 we can assess this scientifically don't 70 00:03:19,530 --> 00:03:16,900 look for that in a dictionary the 71 00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:19,540 scientist 'ti of a set of evidence that 72 00:03:23,520 --> 00:03:22,210 you might encounter alright so this is 73 00:03:24,660 --> 00:03:23,530 the set don't bother trying to capture 74 00:03:27,750 --> 00:03:24,670 this I'm going to go through these in 75 00:03:29,660 --> 00:03:27,760 detail but I have seven suggestions here 76 00:03:32,010 --> 00:03:29,670 that I think would count as criteria 77 00:03:33,750 --> 00:03:32,020 against which you can assess evidence 78 00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:33,760 determine whether it reaches the 79 00:03:39,720 --> 00:03:35,890 threshold of being scientific or not so 80 00:03:41,640 --> 00:03:39,730 but first some preliminary details first 81 00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:41,650 the criteria I'm going to suggest are 82 00:03:45,540 --> 00:03:43,570 often already understood in to 83 00:03:48,570 --> 00:03:45,550 intuitively you'll say oh yeah obviously 84 00:03:50,699 --> 00:03:48,580 that that's a criterion criterion you'll 85 00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:50,709 you'll say that when you see it duh I 86 00:03:53,670 --> 00:03:51,730 mean why is he putting that up there 87 00:03:56,190 --> 00:03:53,680 it's because it's never been it's never 88 00:03:58,440 --> 00:03:56,200 been actually codified or formalized as 89 00:04:01,350 --> 00:03:58,450 part of the criteria for what counts of 90 00:04:05,910 --> 00:04:01,360 scientific evidence my list is perhaps 91 00:04:07,380 --> 00:04:05,920 in fact highly likely incomplete maybe 92 00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:07,390 there are better labels available than 93 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:10,570 what I've used perhaps some of these 94 00:04:15,420 --> 00:04:14,650 don't really belong and I'm open to 95 00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:15,430 suggestions 96 00:04:20,729 --> 00:04:17,410 okay if you have some thoughts about it 97 00:04:23,340 --> 00:04:20,739 that'd be great but I think that this 98 00:04:27,030 --> 00:04:23,350 exercise is necessary and we really need 99 00:04:28,980 --> 00:04:27,040 to probably boil down to what is the 100 00:04:31,620 --> 00:04:28,990 essence of what counts as scientific 101 00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:31,630 when it comes to evidence okay so first 102 00:04:36,249 --> 00:04:34,610 off well there's lots of first offs here 103 00:04:38,529 --> 00:04:36,259 the next thing we're talking about is 104 00:04:41,890 --> 00:04:38,539 the idea of how evidence fits into 105 00:04:44,290 --> 00:04:41,900 hypotheses and theories right obviously 106 00:04:47,379 --> 00:04:44,300 evidence is the kind of the foundation 107 00:04:49,119 --> 00:04:47,389 from which hypotheses and theories come 108 00:04:52,200 --> 00:04:49,129 and then it actually serves as a 109 00:04:54,879 --> 00:04:52,210 validating device and a way of assessing 110 00:04:57,189 --> 00:04:54,889 theory a theory or hypothesis and 111 00:04:58,929 --> 00:04:57,199 determining the truth value of it over 112 00:05:00,850 --> 00:04:58,939 all and refining it and you know you 113 00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:00,860 know the whole scientific process but if 114 00:05:06,339 --> 00:05:02,210 you think about it evidence is the core 115 00:05:09,189 --> 00:05:06,349 of all of that right so let's go through 116 00:05:12,670 --> 00:05:09,199 these criteria that I'm proposing first 117 00:05:15,219 --> 00:05:12,680 was what I call relevance and roughly 118 00:05:17,950 --> 00:05:15,229 said the more strongly directly a set of 119 00:05:20,350 --> 00:05:17,960 evidence supports the hypothesis or some 120 00:05:21,939 --> 00:05:20,360 other claim you're making the more 121 00:05:24,399 --> 00:05:21,949 confirmation it provides for that 122 00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:24,409 hypothesis this is one of those duh 123 00:05:29,409 --> 00:05:26,690 things well you know if you're trying to 124 00:05:30,670 --> 00:05:29,419 determine that bacterial count content 125 00:05:33,550 --> 00:05:30,680 of milk and you're measuring the 126 00:05:35,019 --> 00:05:33,560 temperature of the cow probably is not 127 00:05:38,980 --> 00:05:35,029 gonna make much difference that evidence 128 00:05:41,589 --> 00:05:38,990 isn't going to be very helpful right but 129 00:05:43,930 --> 00:05:41,599 when you get right down to it evaluating 130 00:05:46,469 --> 00:05:43,940 how relevant a piece of information is 131 00:05:49,390 --> 00:05:46,479 for a particularly claim or hypothesis 132 00:05:51,129 --> 00:05:49,400 is actually the first step you do that's 133 00:05:54,879 --> 00:05:51,139 an important thing and the more relevant 134 00:05:58,629 --> 00:05:54,889 is the the more it has to it more it 135 00:06:03,010 --> 00:05:58,639 brings to bear against that claim so the 136 00:06:05,439 --> 00:06:03,020 next one is independence and what I mean 137 00:06:06,670 --> 00:06:05,449 by independence is by the way not all 138 00:06:09,040 --> 00:06:06,680 these pictures are going to necessarily 139 00:06:10,689 --> 00:06:09,050 match I couldn't figure out how you show 140 00:06:13,119 --> 00:06:10,699 independence other than an American flag 141 00:06:15,399 --> 00:06:13,129 with a guy blowing the flute right so 142 00:06:16,719 --> 00:06:15,409 here we have you know a different kind 143 00:06:21,189 --> 00:06:16,729 of a flower but it's still a flower 144 00:06:23,829 --> 00:06:21,199 right so independence essentially is it 145 00:06:25,869 --> 00:06:23,839 I'm suggests as if it's evidence that 146 00:06:27,159 --> 00:06:25,879 presents a stronger confirmation so it 147 00:06:29,589 --> 00:06:27,169 comes as a result of a separate 148 00:06:33,490 --> 00:06:29,599 evidentiary claim as opposed to some 149 00:06:34,990 --> 00:06:33,500 evidence that that is kind of a piece 150 00:06:36,939 --> 00:06:35,000 with other kinds of evidence the more 151 00:06:40,390 --> 00:06:36,949 dog noir and the more independent it is 152 00:06:43,899 --> 00:06:40,400 of the that particular of other evidence 153 00:06:44,829 --> 00:06:43,909 the stronger it tells now he I was going 154 00:06:46,449 --> 00:06:44,839 to try to get through without saying 155 00:06:47,780 --> 00:06:46,459 Concilium stew prove to somebody I could 156 00:06:50,300 --> 00:06:47,790 buy failed so 157 00:06:53,090 --> 00:06:50,310 you might recognize this is kind of an 158 00:06:55,670 --> 00:06:53,100 element of conciliation the in the in 159 00:06:59,720 --> 00:06:55,680 the lowercase C version of it not the 160 00:07:02,870 --> 00:06:59,730 uppercase C of Concilium right so let's 161 00:07:04,220 --> 00:07:02,880 see this is something Eliot sober the 162 00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:04,230 philosopher of biology philosopher of 163 00:07:08,180 --> 00:07:06,450 science said he said if I examine two 164 00:07:10,250 --> 00:07:08,190 dependent effects there's a higher 165 00:07:13,310 --> 00:07:10,260 probability that I will obtain relevant 166 00:07:15,560 --> 00:07:13,320 information a match to I'm sorry two 167 00:07:17,150 --> 00:07:15,570 dependent effects there's a higher 168 00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:17,160 probability that I will get a match 169 00:07:23,330 --> 00:07:20,250 however if I examine the independent 170 00:07:25,790 --> 00:07:23,340 effects but managed nonetheless to 171 00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:25,800 obtain a match that information will be 172 00:07:30,650 --> 00:07:28,650 weightier than a match obtained on 173 00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:30,660 dependent effects okay 174 00:07:35,090 --> 00:07:32,850 and then again this is also kind of 175 00:07:36,590 --> 00:07:35,100 intuitive if you get a separate piece of 176 00:07:38,450 --> 00:07:36,600 information that isn't dependent on the 177 00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:38,460 information you already have that's 178 00:07:45,370 --> 00:07:41,250 going to be more confirmatory now a a 179 00:07:47,870 --> 00:07:45,380 real-world example back when I was a 180 00:07:50,060 --> 00:07:47,880 wet-behind-the-ears second lieutenant I 181 00:07:53,140 --> 00:07:50,070 had a old crusty senior master sergeant 182 00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:53,150 who had done four tours in Vietnam and 183 00:07:58,460 --> 00:07:56,370 he was telling story about one of the 184 00:08:00,110 --> 00:07:58,470 problems they ran into and that was that 185 00:08:01,460 --> 00:08:00,120 of course everybody's out there trying 186 00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:01,470 to collect intelligence against the Viet 187 00:08:05,330 --> 00:08:02,730 Cong and the North Vietnamese whoever 188 00:08:07,160 --> 00:08:05,340 might be and and each of these units 189 00:08:08,900 --> 00:08:07,170 were kind of independent of each other 190 00:08:10,910 --> 00:08:08,910 and they weren't necessarily comparing 191 00:08:13,970 --> 00:08:10,920 notes as back before we had all this 192 00:08:17,420 --> 00:08:13,980 great integrative technology which 193 00:08:20,270 --> 00:08:17,430 sometimes works ok so they had this 194 00:08:22,310 --> 00:08:20,280 vietnamese source who would peddle 195 00:08:24,170 --> 00:08:22,320 information right he would he had some 196 00:08:25,910 --> 00:08:24,180 some information sometimes it was real 197 00:08:27,620 --> 00:08:25,920 but usually it wasn't and he go from 198 00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:27,630 each of these units which were spread 199 00:08:31,010 --> 00:08:29,490 out over a particular reason and he 200 00:08:33,950 --> 00:08:31,020 would sell the same intelligence to each 201 00:08:35,480 --> 00:08:33,960 one of them and then what had happen is 202 00:08:36,860 --> 00:08:35,490 each of you had a different name he 203 00:08:38,839 --> 00:08:36,870 stopped knew him by different names so 204 00:08:40,159 --> 00:08:38,849 they're all thinking ok there's all 205 00:08:41,839 --> 00:08:40,169 these different sources we're getting 206 00:08:43,580 --> 00:08:41,849 all the same confirmation about you know 207 00:08:45,670 --> 00:08:43,590 movements of the enemy or whatever it 208 00:08:48,350 --> 00:08:45,680 must be really legitimate information 209 00:08:49,670 --> 00:08:48,360 but he was making a great living at 210 00:08:50,900 --> 00:08:49,680 peddling the same information and 211 00:08:53,540 --> 00:08:50,910 pertaining to be somebody different in 212 00:08:55,850 --> 00:08:53,550 each place and consequently a lot of bad 213 00:08:58,340 --> 00:08:55,860 decisions were made because the 214 00:09:00,710 --> 00:08:58,350 information really wasn't independent ok 215 00:09:01,350 --> 00:09:00,720 and that can well we have to be careful 216 00:09:07,259 --> 00:09:01,360 that that doesn't 217 00:09:10,590 --> 00:09:07,269 in science okay what's next 218 00:09:13,319 --> 00:09:10,600 diversity a very popular word today and 219 00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:13,329 in some ways is kind of similar to how 220 00:09:17,940 --> 00:09:15,370 we meet it in society and culture so 221 00:09:20,100 --> 00:09:17,950 diversity diverse evidence is more 222 00:09:22,170 --> 00:09:20,110 confirmatory than less diverse evidence 223 00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:22,180 this was related to independence but 224 00:09:27,540 --> 00:09:24,250 it's a little bit different they kind of 225 00:09:30,569 --> 00:09:27,550 overlap so the more different sources 226 00:09:33,150 --> 00:09:30,579 you can get confirmatory evidence from 227 00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:33,160 the more confirmatory it is and 228 00:09:39,150 --> 00:09:35,050 therefore the more scientific it is 229 00:09:40,620 --> 00:09:39,160 right so this is something that a writer 230 00:09:42,540 --> 00:09:40,630 and hora which said we think that 231 00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:42,550 theories are better confirmed by a broad 232 00:09:47,329 --> 00:09:44,290 spectrum of different kinds of evidence 233 00:09:51,389 --> 00:09:47,339 than by a narrow repetitive set of data 234 00:09:55,980 --> 00:09:51,399 makes sense this is also an element in 235 00:09:57,930 --> 00:09:55,990 lower seekin silly ins as well so how do 236 00:10:00,360 --> 00:09:57,940 you achieve diversity that is diversity 237 00:10:01,440 --> 00:10:00,370 between or among instances of items of 238 00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:01,450 evidence so when you talk about 239 00:10:06,930 --> 00:10:03,250 diversity you can't be talking about 240 00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:06,940 about one element of evidence because 241 00:10:14,040 --> 00:10:09,130 we're talking about some diversity 242 00:10:15,660 --> 00:10:14,050 implies multiple elements right so I in 243 00:10:17,790 --> 00:10:15,670 my writing about this I call them 244 00:10:19,290 --> 00:10:17,800 evidence says I've added an S on it 245 00:10:22,259 --> 00:10:19,300 again something you probably won't find 246 00:10:26,340 --> 00:10:22,269 in a dictionary but so we're talking 247 00:10:28,199 --> 00:10:26,350 about about comparing evidences here so 248 00:10:31,380 --> 00:10:28,209 ways you can do it making very the 249 00:10:34,050 --> 00:10:31,390 properties that you're testing you have 250 00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:34,060 maybe multiple independent investigators 251 00:10:37,710 --> 00:10:35,890 in a particular field all of whom are 252 00:10:40,410 --> 00:10:37,720 working on the same project but 253 00:10:42,569 --> 00:10:40,420 separately from each other you may 254 00:10:44,340 --> 00:10:42,579 explore multiple phenomenon that still 255 00:10:47,460 --> 00:10:44,350 nonetheless may have relevance to each 256 00:10:49,500 --> 00:10:47,470 other you may vary the kinds of 257 00:10:54,660 --> 00:10:49,510 instrumentation you use to examine the 258 00:10:58,079 --> 00:10:54,670 phenomena okay example I have of that so 259 00:11:00,480 --> 00:10:58,089 let's say you're working on an 260 00:11:02,550 --> 00:11:00,490 experiment to determine the refractory 261 00:11:06,990 --> 00:11:02,560 properties of some kind of translucent 262 00:11:08,430 --> 00:11:07,000 material to make sure they meet meet you 263 00:11:10,260 --> 00:11:08,440 predict a certain thing about the 264 00:11:12,420 --> 00:11:10,270 referent refractory I should have picked 265 00:11:15,460 --> 00:11:12,430 a word I can say better refractory 266 00:11:16,450 --> 00:11:15,470 properties of this material 267 00:11:19,270 --> 00:11:16,460 there's a number of ways you can 268 00:11:21,870 --> 00:11:19,280 evaluate that so one might be the angle 269 00:11:28,420 --> 00:11:21,880 at which you strike it with a light beam 270 00:11:30,630 --> 00:11:28,430 another might be see then using 271 00:11:32,800 --> 00:11:30,640 different wavelengths of light 272 00:11:36,460 --> 00:11:32,810 attempting different dispersion patterns 273 00:11:38,500 --> 00:11:36,470 with it intensity of light or other 274 00:11:40,570 --> 00:11:38,510 elements that are be different ways of 275 00:11:43,390 --> 00:11:40,580 taste-testing the same material to come 276 00:11:45,610 --> 00:11:43,400 to the outlet to achieve the outcome 277 00:11:48,130 --> 00:11:45,620 that the information that you're trying 278 00:11:50,470 --> 00:11:48,140 to achieve about it right so that's a 279 00:11:52,600 --> 00:11:50,480 version of diversity another one might 280 00:11:54,910 --> 00:11:52,610 be in the field of archaeology you're 281 00:11:57,310 --> 00:11:54,920 trying to assess maybe the beliefs or 282 00:11:59,530 --> 00:11:57,320 practices of a certain culture and there 283 00:12:01,870 --> 00:11:59,540 you might go for you know markings on 284 00:12:03,850 --> 00:12:01,880 part recharge shards and say I'm not an 285 00:12:05,170 --> 00:12:03,860 archaeologist you know the 286 00:12:08,710 --> 00:12:05,180 stratification of different elements 287 00:12:10,780 --> 00:12:08,720 that you find in a dig I have a whole 288 00:12:12,310 --> 00:12:10,790 laundry list of these but but you get 289 00:12:13,510 --> 00:12:12,320 the idea if there may be all kinds of 290 00:12:15,010 --> 00:12:13,520 different elements that you can bring 291 00:12:16,630 --> 00:12:15,020 together that have bearing on your 292 00:12:17,890 --> 00:12:16,640 question that may help you bring 293 00:12:21,430 --> 00:12:17,900 resolution and those are all diverse 294 00:12:26,320 --> 00:12:21,440 elements that will make your conclusions 295 00:12:27,750 --> 00:12:26,330 more robust and more accurate ok next 296 00:12:31,780 --> 00:12:27,760 from those repeatability 297 00:12:34,210 --> 00:12:31,790 okay so repeatability evidence that can 298 00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:34,220 be reproduced by the creation of the 299 00:12:37,630 --> 00:12:36,290 same or closely similar circumstances in 300 00:12:40,390 --> 00:12:37,640 which that information was first 301 00:12:42,460 --> 00:12:40,400 observed in a repetitive way more 302 00:12:45,370 --> 00:12:42,470 strongly confirms hypothesis than does a 303 00:12:48,790 --> 00:12:45,380 singular occurrence of such evidence ok 304 00:12:50,740 --> 00:12:48,800 that's a non no brainer if you have one 305 00:12:53,050 --> 00:12:50,750 instance of a phenomenon occurring under 306 00:12:55,450 --> 00:12:53,060 certain conditions that's not enough to 307 00:12:56,890 --> 00:12:55,460 really tell you much if you can repeat 308 00:12:59,080 --> 00:12:56,900 that then of course you're making 309 00:13:01,750 --> 00:12:59,090 progress you can you can certify that 310 00:13:05,670 --> 00:13:01,760 this this outcome is not just a one-off 311 00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:05,680 fluke but that it can be repeated now 312 00:13:09,970 --> 00:13:08,810 this is also very obvious to us except 313 00:13:12,100 --> 00:13:09,980 there's one thing I want to add to this 314 00:13:15,040 --> 00:13:12,110 and that is repeatability isn't reckless 315 00:13:18,070 --> 00:13:15,050 replicability I'm going to go into that 316 00:13:20,290 --> 00:13:18,080 in a little bit but in this case repeal 317 00:13:23,700 --> 00:13:20,300 repeatability applies whether it's the 318 00:13:26,230 --> 00:13:23,710 same lab doing the same experiment or 319 00:13:28,540 --> 00:13:26,240 multiple labs no matter how many doing 320 00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:28,550 the same or similar experiments that all 321 00:13:34,650 --> 00:13:29,330 counts 322 00:13:40,090 --> 00:13:37,329 so next is something I've called 323 00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:40,100 accordance coordinates acceptable 324 00:13:45,090 --> 00:13:42,170 evidence must be produced in accordance 325 00:13:48,430 --> 00:13:45,100 with well-formed and scientifically 326 00:13:50,079 --> 00:13:48,440 trustworthy methods and techniques now I 327 00:13:51,819 --> 00:13:50,089 don't know you may recognize some of the 328 00:13:53,050 --> 00:13:51,829 folks in this photo and if you want to 329 00:13:55,030 --> 00:13:53,060 approach me afterwards I'll tell you 330 00:13:57,400 --> 00:13:55,040 what was going on here but it did 331 00:14:00,819 --> 00:13:57,410 involve research into a phenomenon is 332 00:14:02,920 --> 00:14:00,829 quite interesting a coordinates 333 00:14:04,060 --> 00:14:02,930 accordance however so essentially what 334 00:14:07,180 --> 00:14:04,070 I'm saying when I say at coordinates 335 00:14:08,650 --> 00:14:07,190 what I'm talking about is and this is 336 00:14:11,079 --> 00:14:08,660 kind of an expectation that people 337 00:14:13,720 --> 00:14:11,089 automatically have in scientific fields 338 00:14:15,190 --> 00:14:13,730 is that when you produce evidence the 339 00:14:16,810 --> 00:14:15,200 thing that looks your methodology they 340 00:14:17,980 --> 00:14:16,820 can look at your statistics they can 341 00:14:20,500 --> 00:14:17,990 look at your analysis they know what 342 00:14:23,910 --> 00:14:20,510 your conclusions and save ok this fits 343 00:14:27,370 --> 00:14:23,920 within the framework of the process and 344 00:14:29,680 --> 00:14:27,380 conduct of standard accepted science 345 00:14:30,819 --> 00:14:29,690 okay that would be accordance but there 346 00:14:32,730 --> 00:14:30,829 are a couple of things to keep in mind 347 00:14:35,560 --> 00:14:32,740 that are important first one is 348 00:14:39,519 --> 00:14:35,570 accordance and the way I mean it doesn't 349 00:14:42,130 --> 00:14:39,529 require that new methods necessarily be 350 00:14:44,769 --> 00:14:42,140 consistent and ours that they be 351 00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:44,779 consistent with current scientific 352 00:14:47,920 --> 00:14:46,130 practice but it doesn't require they be 353 00:14:51,430 --> 00:14:47,930 the same otherwise let's you drive a 354 00:14:55,360 --> 00:14:51,440 slide for this ok do not preclude nor 355 00:14:58,829 --> 00:14:55,370 novel methods or techniques or exploring 356 00:15:01,300 --> 00:14:58,839 divergent phenomenon because oops 357 00:15:04,420 --> 00:15:01,310 because otherwise science couldn't 358 00:15:06,519 --> 00:15:04,430 progress ok you have to allow a room for 359 00:15:10,480 --> 00:15:06,529 people to explore an experiment beyond 360 00:15:12,880 --> 00:15:10,490 the bounds but but you have to use good 361 00:15:15,639 --> 00:15:12,890 judgment beyond the bounds of what's 362 00:15:18,069 --> 00:15:15,649 normally accepted as science as long as 363 00:15:20,800 --> 00:15:18,079 most of what they're doing fits within 364 00:15:22,389 --> 00:15:20,810 that context okay so accordance is 365 00:15:24,970 --> 00:15:22,399 really important and oftentimes that's 366 00:15:30,430 --> 00:15:24,980 all that people use to judge where their 367 00:15:32,050 --> 00:15:30,440 evidences is scientific or not all right 368 00:15:34,870 --> 00:15:32,060 it goes some way or other that was a 369 00:15:36,759 --> 00:15:34,880 scientific experiment I failed it ok so 370 00:15:39,190 --> 00:15:36,769 the next one was publicity and 371 00:15:42,490 --> 00:15:39,200 objectivity 372 00:15:45,160 --> 00:15:42,500 what I mean by this is evidence must be 373 00:15:46,600 --> 00:15:45,170 observable and reportable by anyone who 374 00:15:47,560 --> 00:15:46,610 can arrange to be in the right place at 375 00:15:50,950 --> 00:15:47,570 the right time under the right 376 00:15:55,060 --> 00:15:50,960 conditions and if necessary with the 377 00:15:55,870 --> 00:15:55,070 correct equipment okay now I'm gonna 378 00:15:58,840 --> 00:15:55,880 expand on that 379 00:16:00,550 --> 00:15:58,850 first off subjective evidence is still 380 00:16:02,560 --> 00:16:00,560 evidence that's one of the mistakes that 381 00:16:05,050 --> 00:16:02,570 a lot of scientists make is that 382 00:16:07,000 --> 00:16:05,060 oh that evidence objective or that claim 383 00:16:08,140 --> 00:16:07,010 is injective or whatever this kind of 384 00:16:11,170 --> 00:16:08,150 goes back to a little bit of what Hamas 385 00:16:12,580 --> 00:16:11,180 was talking about that's subjective it 386 00:16:14,620 --> 00:16:12,590 doesn't count as evidence it's not 387 00:16:16,780 --> 00:16:14,630 evidence well that's false it is 388 00:16:23,190 --> 00:16:16,790 evidence of a sort it's just not as 389 00:16:28,330 --> 00:16:23,200 powerful in a scientific context as as 390 00:16:30,130 --> 00:16:28,340 objective or public evidences okay so I 391 00:16:32,560 --> 00:16:30,140 want to say it so the best evidence in 392 00:16:35,500 --> 00:16:32,570 science has to be available to science 393 00:16:39,010 --> 00:16:35,510 because they have to check it test it 394 00:16:41,650 --> 00:16:39,020 verify it and apply it objectively in a 395 00:16:43,180 --> 00:16:41,660 public way or you'll never know you 396 00:16:45,820 --> 00:16:43,190 can't know just based on someone's 397 00:16:48,100 --> 00:16:45,830 subjective experience how legitimate or 398 00:16:52,740 --> 00:16:48,110 illegitimate that experiences that they 399 00:16:57,370 --> 00:16:52,750 report okay all right so let's go to 400 00:16:59,470 --> 00:16:57,380 congruence what's congruence the more 401 00:17:02,800 --> 00:16:59,480 closely a piece of evidence can be 402 00:17:05,410 --> 00:17:02,810 accommodated without contradiction 403 00:17:07,270 --> 00:17:05,420 within an existing body of evidence that 404 00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:07,280 already supports the hypothesis or 405 00:17:11,439 --> 00:17:09,290 theory the more strongly the new 406 00:17:14,560 --> 00:17:11,449 evidence confirms that hypothesis or 407 00:17:16,689 --> 00:17:14,570 theory it's this is also an intuitive 408 00:17:18,730 --> 00:17:16,699 fairly obvious thing do you think about 409 00:17:21,280 --> 00:17:18,740 it if somebody pops up with a piece of 410 00:17:23,980 --> 00:17:21,290 evidence that doesn't fit all at all 411 00:17:27,420 --> 00:17:23,990 maybe in contradicts the information you 412 00:17:29,590 --> 00:17:27,430 have first the first psychological 413 00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:29,600 inclination and in fact the first 414 00:17:33,750 --> 00:17:31,610 legitimately scientific inclination is 415 00:17:37,030 --> 00:17:33,760 to question that new piece of evidence 416 00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:37,040 okay if it fits within your already 417 00:17:43,020 --> 00:17:40,610 existing theory base then it's less 418 00:17:46,080 --> 00:17:43,030 questionable it makes more sense because 419 00:17:49,810 --> 00:17:46,090 we understand it this goes back to 420 00:17:51,010 --> 00:17:49,820 Willard fun Norman crying coin no we 421 00:17:51,260 --> 00:17:51,020 spelled his name right because I do it 422 00:17:54,020 --> 00:17:51,270 from 423 00:17:56,330 --> 00:17:54,030 who had this idea of web the web of 424 00:17:59,450 --> 00:17:56,340 belief where the idea you had kind of a 425 00:18:02,480 --> 00:17:59,460 core of belief core set of knowledge and 426 00:18:04,730 --> 00:18:02,490 the closer piece of information came for 427 00:18:07,460 --> 00:18:04,740 a piece of knowledge came to that core 428 00:18:09,380 --> 00:18:07,470 the more readily we were accepted and we 429 00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:09,390 would be more justified to accept it the 430 00:18:12,770 --> 00:18:11,010 close read the further out on the 431 00:18:14,720 --> 00:18:12,780 fringes that's where we start having to 432 00:18:16,370 --> 00:18:14,730 kind of maybe the jury is out on 433 00:18:18,260 --> 00:18:16,380 something withhold judgment on it and 434 00:18:21,320 --> 00:18:18,270 examine it more carefully more closely 435 00:18:25,460 --> 00:18:21,330 before we are willing to admit it into 436 00:18:27,260 --> 00:18:25,470 our into our database into our corpus of 437 00:18:29,720 --> 00:18:27,270 belief and I just got three minute 438 00:18:32,419 --> 00:18:29,730 warning that that's kind of a football 439 00:18:35,540 --> 00:18:32,429 thing isn't it okay all right so 440 00:18:37,340 --> 00:18:35,550 important points to consider now all the 441 00:18:38,540 --> 00:18:37,350 criteria may apply to certain items of 442 00:18:40,430 --> 00:18:38,550 evidence there are some kinds of 443 00:18:44,060 --> 00:18:40,440 evidence that you can't apply these to 444 00:18:45,230 --> 00:18:44,070 in paleontology for example you aren't 445 00:18:46,850 --> 00:18:45,240 going to go and keep creating new 446 00:18:49,570 --> 00:18:46,860 evidence you just have to find what you 447 00:18:52,070 --> 00:18:49,580 can find and that's what you get right 448 00:18:54,410 --> 00:18:52,080 the more that can be applied of these 449 00:19:00,080 --> 00:18:54,420 criteria the more we consider that 450 00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:00,090 evidence of scientific but how and these 451 00:19:04,310 --> 00:19:02,490 criteria can be used in Demark and haldi 452 00:19:05,570 --> 00:19:04,320 I don't know what I meant by that how 453 00:19:09,919 --> 00:19:05,580 these criteria can be using the 454 00:19:11,419 --> 00:19:09,929 demarcation demarcation debate is when 455 00:19:12,320 --> 00:19:11,429 somebody claims that the evidence isn't 456 00:19:15,590 --> 00:19:12,330 scientific 457 00:19:16,910 --> 00:19:15,600 then you can say okay well why isn't it 458 00:19:18,650 --> 00:19:16,920 here's what counts the scientific 459 00:19:20,630 --> 00:19:18,660 evidence do it does it not meet these 460 00:19:22,250 --> 00:19:20,640 criteria okay and so it helps us 461 00:19:25,190 --> 00:19:22,260 determine what might be scientific what 462 00:19:27,169 --> 00:19:25,200 might not be okay there are two concepts 463 00:19:30,230 --> 00:19:27,179 I didn't mention one was falsifiability 464 00:19:32,660 --> 00:19:30,240 Warner's replication except briefly so 465 00:19:35,410 --> 00:19:32,670 falsifiability notoriously Karl Popper 466 00:19:37,790 --> 00:19:35,420 who thought that astrology and 467 00:19:42,110 --> 00:19:37,800 psychoanalysis were equally valid 468 00:19:44,180 --> 00:19:42,120 Sciences which wasn't okay it's relevant 469 00:19:46,130 --> 00:19:44,190 hypotheses and theories but it's not 470 00:19:50,210 --> 00:19:46,140 concerned with evidence it has only to 471 00:19:53,410 --> 00:19:50,220 do with with the religious legitimacy of 472 00:19:55,520 --> 00:19:53,420 a hypothesis or a theory elements of 473 00:19:57,590 --> 00:19:55,530 replication replication is actually a 474 00:19:59,210 --> 00:19:57,600 composit is kind of a meta property of 475 00:19:59,930 --> 00:19:59,220 three that I mentioned one is 476 00:20:02,690 --> 00:19:59,940 independence 477 00:20:04,550 --> 00:20:02,700 one is a repeatability one is diversity 478 00:20:07,430 --> 00:20:04,560 those together 479 00:20:08,510 --> 00:20:07,440 constitute replication and I don't have 480 00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:08,520 time to make the argument because I've 481 00:20:12,410 --> 00:20:10,170 already been told me time is exhausted 482 00:20:14,030 --> 00:20:12,420 but I'm gonna charge on anyway as 483 00:20:16,070 --> 00:20:14,040 quickly as I can okay 484 00:20:17,750 --> 00:20:16,080 if we think these seven criteria are 485 00:20:20,090 --> 00:20:17,760 definitive does the evidence Versailles 486 00:20:21,260 --> 00:20:20,100 meet these criteria and I'm not going to 487 00:20:23,120 --> 00:20:21,270 give you an example of that because I 488 00:20:26,150 --> 00:20:23,130 don't have time for that but if it does 489 00:20:27,500 --> 00:20:26,160 does that mean it if it is its if it's 490 00:20:29,630 --> 00:20:27,510 what does that mean if it's still 491 00:20:31,190 --> 00:20:29,640 rejected so if you get a critic who says 492 00:20:34,190 --> 00:20:31,200 I don't care if it meets those criteria 493 00:20:36,140 --> 00:20:34,200 it's still not legitimate evidence well 494 00:20:38,390 --> 00:20:36,150 then here's the problem makes us wonder 495 00:20:40,430 --> 00:20:38,400 first of all well makes us wonder does 496 00:20:42,590 --> 00:20:40,440 scientific evidence itself even counter 497 00:20:45,440 --> 00:20:42,600 scientific because if the criteria 498 00:20:46,850 --> 00:20:45,450 applies the scientific evidence but they 499 00:20:49,610 --> 00:20:46,860 say yes there is this 500 00:20:51,500 --> 00:20:49,620 sigh sigh effect that we have we have 501 00:20:54,740 --> 00:20:51,510 the same criteria fit the evidence for 502 00:20:56,000 --> 00:20:54,750 that but we reject that what stops us 503 00:20:58,130 --> 00:20:56,010 from rejecting mainstream science 504 00:21:01,730 --> 00:20:58,140 evidence as well so I guess I'll quit 505 00:21:04,610 --> 00:21:01,740 there whoops I'm not gonna give you that 506 00:21:06,830 --> 00:21:04,620 example I had a final slide let me find 507 00:21:19,220 --> 00:21:06,840 it OOP there it is right there thank you 508 00:21:21,830 --> 00:21:19,230 question and answer apologize in advance 509 00:21:24,290 --> 00:21:21,840 my question isn't is more comment as 510 00:21:26,570 --> 00:21:24,300 morally than the general topic then your 511 00:21:28,340 --> 00:21:26,580 specific talk huh huh I think in one 512 00:21:30,740 --> 00:21:28,350 minute or less I think I have a solution 513 00:21:32,930 --> 00:21:30,750 to Concilium it would be very simple 514 00:21:35,120 --> 00:21:32,940 software solution even though I started 515 00:21:36,440 --> 00:21:35,130 out as a critic of is it the blue screen 516 00:21:39,410 --> 00:21:36,450 of death that comes on everybody's 517 00:21:41,780 --> 00:21:39,420 computer is that okay so there's a crowd 518 00:21:44,060 --> 00:21:41,790 source software solution and we create 519 00:21:45,470 --> 00:21:44,070 an open and dynamic Concilium mind map 520 00:21:47,540 --> 00:21:45,480 you would start with a couple of dozen 521 00:21:49,810 --> 00:21:47,550 basic notes such as consciousness is 522 00:21:52,659 --> 00:21:49,820 primary or neurological material 523 00:21:54,639 --> 00:21:52,669 as wrong etc and then SSC members would 524 00:21:56,019 --> 00:21:54,649 just sign on to this website stirring 525 00:21:58,149 --> 00:21:56,029 the mind map and each node would have a 526 00:22:00,460 --> 00:21:58,159 slider control very important the analog 527 00:22:05,680 --> 00:22:00,470 not digital collaboration between right 528 00:22:07,060 --> 00:22:05,690 and left actors and and the nodes that 529 00:22:09,310 --> 00:22:07,070 got higher ratings 530 00:22:11,349 --> 00:22:09,320 we'd be invited to do it very quickly we 531 00:22:12,940 --> 00:22:11,359 get larger or otherwise indicate their 532 00:22:14,950 --> 00:22:12,950 heightened status well those popular 533 00:22:17,919 --> 00:22:14,960 ones would get smaller even voted off 534 00:22:19,479 --> 00:22:17,929 the mindmap Island those voted off my 535 00:22:21,009 --> 00:22:19,489 map would then go into our missionary 536 00:22:23,080 --> 00:22:21,019 area where they could be revived and 537 00:22:24,849 --> 00:22:23,090 then also be a candidate area of those 538 00:22:26,859 --> 00:22:24,859 nodes that could join the current mind 539 00:22:28,869 --> 00:22:26,869 map if they got enough support and this 540 00:22:31,509 --> 00:22:28,879 way there's no frozen ideology of 541 00:22:33,580 --> 00:22:31,519 Concilium but a dynamic crowdsource now 542 00:22:36,279 --> 00:22:33,590 open to excision of what has become 543 00:22:37,930 --> 00:22:36,289 obsolete headship totally Lindos the map 544 00:22:39,909 --> 00:22:37,940 would also track trends which we were 545 00:22:42,190 --> 00:22:39,919 interesting feedback and users would 546 00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:42,200 also receive their individual Concilium 547 00:22:46,719 --> 00:22:44,450 map based on their preferences so they 548 00:22:56,560 --> 00:22:46,729 can see how congruent or not that is 549 00:22:57,820 --> 00:22:56,570 with the collective map okay okay yes do 550 00:23:01,869 --> 00:22:57,830 you just want me to vote it off the 551 00:23:03,279 --> 00:23:01,879 concilium silencers all here at the 552 00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:03,289 beginning of you talk said hey there may 553 00:23:08,120 --> 00:23:06,210 be others yeah 554 00:23:09,830 --> 00:23:08,130 something just for your consideration 555 00:23:12,290 --> 00:23:09,840 you actually danced around this 556 00:23:14,540 --> 00:23:12,300 particular one several times of what you 557 00:23:16,250 --> 00:23:14,550 talked about so you may argue that it's 558 00:23:20,300 --> 00:23:16,260 already in there okay 559 00:23:22,310 --> 00:23:20,310 but the the quality and extent Asian of 560 00:23:25,030 --> 00:23:22,320 evidence is actually very important in 561 00:23:27,560 --> 00:23:25,040 establishing it scientifically because 562 00:23:30,680 --> 00:23:27,570 you need to understand the context of 563 00:23:33,800 --> 00:23:30,690 what you do so a lot of times we'll get 564 00:23:36,560 --> 00:23:33,810 evidence will say and here it is but we 565 00:23:39,650 --> 00:23:36,570 don't always document all of the issues 566 00:23:41,090 --> 00:23:39,660 I should say issues but all the areas in 567 00:23:44,690 --> 00:23:41,100 the context under which that evidence 568 00:23:46,070 --> 00:23:44,700 arose which makes it unaccessible to 569 00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:46,080 anybody except for the original 570 00:23:50,330 --> 00:23:47,970 collector so that's just something else 571 00:23:53,990 --> 00:23:50,340 yeah in a way that's related to 572 00:23:56,150 --> 00:23:54,000 publicity objectivity but but it's more 573 00:23:59,000 --> 00:23:56,160 like turning that into a record that