Are learned and innate the only types of behaviors?

quote:

---

If what you saw with your own eyes (or observed directly in any other way) conflicted with a vicarious account from a "highly respected" scientist in a "highly respected" scientific journal, which would you believe? Yourself, or the scientist?

---

I would accept the scientific consensus (as opposed to just a single scientist).But even still, the single study by the single scientist in the peer-reviewed journal has an enormous advantage over my eyewitness account, and that is that its methodology was designed to combat all sorts of natural bias that humans have and thought errors that humans naturally make all the time.My direct observation probably lacks this methodology.After all, it is really extremely easy to be mistaken in our perceptions.Example: cargo cults.

quote:

---

What if you were someone with no scientific background whatsoever. Which should you believe?

---

It would be even more likely, in that case, that the person who had the experience should defer to science, since they likely aren't aware of everything I explained above about scientific methodology.

quote:

---

I would always believe the evidence of my own eyes. Some people would be amazed at how easily experts can misinterpret observations or rely on weak assumptions.

---

But if you aren't an expert yourself, then how on earth would you know if they misinterpreted anything, or made weak assumptions?What about memory? Do you trust your own memory in a similar way that you trust your other perceptions?To quote the late Richard Feynman: Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They sometimes correct their interpretations years later and explain where they went wrong.

---

Actually, scientists correct their interpretations and explain where they went wrong much more frequently than "years later". It happens on a nearly daily basis on some level, I would guess, though the scientists participating in this thread may correct me.The thing you have to realize is that the way scientists figure out how they "go wrong" is for new evidence to come to light, or better methodology or technology is developed to give a clearer picure.These days, major scientific theories aren't really "overturned" in a dramatic fashion, and researchers who's past work is shown to be in error or inaccurate in some way are probably not completely wrong in everything they concluded. They're just less right as the current data shows.Again, what sort of similar process do individuals submit to to verify and test their conclusions about whatever they perceived that would justify their believing their own eyes if science contradicts them?

quote:

---

I have similar regard for my memory.

---

Why?What do you know about how human memory works?

quote:

---

'Comes to light', is scientific rhetoric for 'I now recognise'. But phrased in the former pompous way the scientist is able to include everyone in his original blindness.

---

No.Before microscopes were invented, we couldn't actually see microorganisms, so the evidence of their existence was new. When Archaeopteryx fossils were found, that was new evidence that came to light that strengthened some paleontological theories and weakened others.There are more examples of this sort of thing, of course, and the point is that new evidence really is discovered all the time, in all fields.

quote:

---

When I learn something new I say just that, I never say that something new has 'come to light'. I am the one looking. I see the evidence or I fail to see it. The evidence isn't looking for me and 'coming to light'.

---

I think you are getting hung up on your emotional reaction to a turn of phrase. Sometimes scientists miss things, yes, but are you saying that all scientists, many with differing and competing interpretations of the evidence fail to see?

quote:

---

Do you really mean to ask what I know about the scientific model used to describe the concept of memory?

---

There are many models used to describe how various kinds of human memory works.How much do you know about them?

quote:

---

It can happen.

---

Sure. But can you give an example of when it actually has happened?

Again, how much do you know about the various theories of human memory?Moving to your next point,

quote:

---

There is also general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners, and that further research is warranted.[10][11][12] Though charged as pseudoscience, Dr. William F. Williams, author of Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, notes that acupuncture --"once rejected as 'oriental fakery' -- is now (if grudgingly) recognized as engaged in something quite real."[13]

---

I'd say the above doesn't give the whole picture.The metaphysical concept of "chi" that acupuncturists have claimed to manipulate has never been shown to exist. It has been demonstrated that it is likely that endorphin release is the reason for the benefit, and that massage often provides the same benefit without breaking the skin with needles. Accupuncture has been shown to be effective in temporarily relieving only certain kinds of back and neck pain and no better than placebo for other conditions it has claimed, for centuries, to cure or help. Future testing may reveal otherwise, but that's not a problem for science.But anyway, I fail to see how this is supportive for you.Scientists didn't accept accupuncture's effectiveness until there were studies to show it to be effective, albeit in a far more limited scope than TCM practitioners claim.Scientists still don't accept that acupuncturists manipulate "chi" or that it can affect the spleen, stomach, kidneys, etc. like TCM says it can, and that's because there is no evidence for them. Those concepts are pseudoscientific.