"Zététique: critical spirit and intellectual self-defense" by Richard Monvoisin [Entire]
Interesting speech there again, which is addressed as usual to its skeptical clientele and who gives what everyone can expect a self confirmation that what he says is consistent and from there: true!
In fact it is a simple Scottish shower technique that can be learned in all marketing training.
Attract approval by emitting positive ideas that everyone can naturally approve, then negative ones on the competitor's product, which triggers, by reflex, an approval for this negativism, and immediately revert to the positivism of his own product. So it is clever and is not false in itself, just on the verge of intellectual honesty, but this is not the goal. What his colleague analyzes very well and which he implements and which they consider as necessary: doubt… of the other obviously. This is the whole art of skepticism!
Where it goes wrong is when the roles are reversed and the accuser becomes accused, with the same techniques of doubt, of suspicion of dishonesty or conditioning. And there, zetetic or not the result is the same!
So the question arises can we trust the speech of one or the other of the possible manipulators?
Last point, this permanent recourse to the word
science as others do with the word
God, as if to recommend himself by a word necessarily credited these speeches.
But what is science in itself? Nothing or rather it is only a concept of the spirit that each one will try to concretize by material examples which, like all those there, depend on the criteria of measurement, comparison used, if that can be measured since the materialism It can only be recommended from it on the basis of materials. For example how to measure the capacities of an individual in terms of dowsing, which he evokes, and on what criteria if not, for him, with material, the exclusive tool of this "science". So, they should not be reserved on the subject, but contest it as unscientific since it cannot be measured by material ... of measurement, it is the snake that bites its tail constantly (although it recognizes that everything depends on the “professional” skills of each one) hence the subjectivity of the appreciations which it carries while playing on the edge of those which have especially failures.
With this hypocritical (but sincere) speech he makes here: "
29'14 ''
in fact zetetics is a school of humility (sic) to what extent is my brain able to deceive me and lead me to think that things are true when they are not.
Paranormal phenomenons
Indeed science cannot explain everything, some say for the moment ... in any case science does not aim to explain everything, but the scientific approach aims to describe the world according to what it seems to be, but for that you have to understand the phenomena that happen to us, we are not going to speculate on the sex of the angels and often in the slightly bizarre theories that are brought to us "you see that it is not recognized because the science has not yet discovered, the reasons why "may be but the problem is often in the starting phenomenon, we are missing the starting phenomenon. We are ready to look into the sourcing capacity, the day someone comes up with a real ability that we have been able to show, to draw, before building a theory on this, let's go back to the phenomenon first. If the phenomenon is there, then I can tell you that many of us will be interested in it, it is obvious, the day when we manage to highlight the extra-sensory capacities, we will be tens of thousands to want work on it, that's for sure! but what is missing is the starting point, let's go back to the phenomenon and therefore science may put forward this ability to care, but also that we should be able to see, test, check if there is something else "
Just this piece of bravery is in itself the symbol of this zetetics. Scientifically prove that:
Have we waited for a confirmation of science to breathe? That this science then dissected by the menu, the composition of the air, the role of the lungs, gas exchanges, etc ... it is not useless to understand all these complex mechanisms, but it is not necessary. In the example he takes, therefore, he would like his science to confirm what does not need it, per se. If it works it doesn't matter what will be said to discredit it and if it doesn't work no matter what will be said to credit it. Hence his final stammering on: »
We are ready to look into the sourcing capacity, the day someone comes up with a real ability that we have been able to show, to sourcing, before building a theory on this, let's go back to the phenomenon first »What source? He fantasizes deeply, the phenomenon is so old that very clever who could believe to go back to the phenomenon first.
Then and whatever he says: "
If the phenomenon is there, then I can tell you that many of us will be interested in it, it is obvious, the day when we manage to highlight the extra-sensory capacities, we will be tens of thousands to want work on it, that's for sure "It's totally illusory! He cites the case of Semmelweiss as a model of questioning (his words are not entirely accurate, but let's move on), but this doctor was prosecuted, denied, persecuted by his colleagues and contemporaries who were sure of their science, the only one, the truth. Hygiene called into question the “scientific” dogmas of the moment and it was only when some, the unofficial from neighboring countries (no one is a prophet in his country) exceeded these a priori that this hygiene (however old of several millennia) ended up being adopted again, as Pasteur who also took it by taking credit for it elsewhere. He should be inspired by it and remember it.
Being on Pasteur, he also says that one cannot trust the testimony of a single person. However, Pasteur precisely, was the only one to bear witness to the (failed) success of his rabies vaccination which did a lot of damage afterwards. So from how many testimonies can a phenomenon become credible? 150.000 cancer cures or 150.000 failures and therefore died from cancer? So no more credible than 1 in 2! It is scientific and highly verifiable!
Clearly, according to his faith, he believes or does not believe and not according to any science.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré