How Skeptics Move Goal Posts

[WWu777]

(http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/claim.html)

Extraordinary Claim?
Move the Goal Posts!

A Commentary by Patrick Huyghe

Reprinted from The Anomalist 3

If you've heard it once, no doubt you've heard it a million times.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That old saw has
become the skeptic's number one attack against claims that threaten to
overturn their cherished applecarts. And it's a good one, for one simple
reason: they're right.


But behind this squabbling over the would-be extraordinary, some rather startling back-room maneuvering may take place. As the arguments fly over what exactly constitutes the necessary proof, there's often some hasty rewriting of the rules of the game. For the would-be extraordinary, for the unorthodox claim on the verge of scientific success, the ground rules are gratefully changed. This practice, often referred to as "Moving the Goal Posts," is an extraordinary phenomenon in itself and deserves recognition.

......

Edited by LuxFerum: 

Copyright violation

 

[epepke]

It is the very nature of science to move goalposts. It's called progress. Once something has accumulated enough evidence, it ceases to be speculation and becomes supported by science.

It's a tortuous and ego-bruising process. Skeptics merely insist that everyone with a claim go through the same tortuous and ego-bruising practice that every scientist has had to go through.

 

[Marc]

That is not what he is refering to. What WWoo is referring to is the way paranormalists keep changing the standards of evidence to suit their needs. And then accuse the skeptics of doing just what they are doing.

For example, a paranormalist's standard of evidence is barely anything when trying to prove something is real. But when it comes to demonstrating it is false they try to set impossible goals. (like Zammit's challenge) It is not sufficient to demonstrate a claimed psychic could easily be doing their act through trickery, you must provide absolute proof for every demonstration they have ever done. And if any of the standards they set for disproving something are actually met, they change the standards.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Interesting results when you Google for <"Clayne Yeates" comets>. We've got supporting statements:

http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/iro/

and negative statements:

http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/jay/ETU4/chapter17.html

Sounds like normal old science to me.

~~ Paul

 

[Suezoled]

Believer says "chiropractics is good and valid and such"
Skeptic says" prove it"
Believer throws a link. The study is poor, the writer is biased.
Skeptic says "No, I need evidence like A, B, C"
Believer says "I gave you evidence! I gave you what you wanted! Now you're saying it's not good enough. You twist things and you're against my beliefs. Bye bye"

 

[Checkmite]

I feel it's worth noting that only every single scientific discovery in the history of the universe has been subject to the same "moving goalposts".

 

[Flaherty]

I am a skeptic and I must confess that while I have not moved goalposts, I have had a hand in tearing them down. After Florida State beat hated rival Florida 24-21 in a November 1996 college football game, I was among thousands who stormed the field in joy and helped tear down our goal posts and parade them up and down Tennessee St.

By coincidence, the World's Worst Hangover record was shattered the following morning.

 

[kookbreaker]

I feel it's worth noting that only every single scientific discovery in the history of the universe has been subject to the same "moving goalposts".

My brother actually worked on the part of the topic discussed here. As a grad student, he actually had to spend days looking at a radar screen (or something like that) hoping for micro-comet images. He says he may have seen one. The theory called for thousands. The data was not as solid as the author of this article would have one beleive.

In fact, Yeates observations, given the improvements in optics in the past 2 deacdes, should have made the comets stick out like sore thumbs. They have not done so.

It is very likely that the comets Yeates found were camera noise. "Orbs" for the astronomy set.

So this fellow seems to be complaining that the scientific world did not turn over its books and understanding of the universe on the basis of a hadnful of flawed experiments.

Some still adhere to this theory, but they still have yet to explain how house-sized comets (yes, house sized) manage to enter the atmosphere sevearl times a minute unseen. The advocates have "reasons" but they don't make much sense. Not when a grain of sand meteor makes a huge streak across the sky.

This article is one big attack on science topped with a helping of special pleading. Go to sci.astro and search for Yeates and comets for more info.

This article depends on its readers being ignorant of science to spread its dreck. All the complaining of "moving the goalposts" is actually a cover for a seriosu lack of evidence.