But there is only one surefire method of proper pattern recognition, and that is science.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge.
But a science is exact to the extent that its method measures up to and is adequate to its object.
Science consists exactly of those forms of knowledge that can be verified and duplicated by anybody.
Traditional scientific method has always been at the very best, 20 - 20 hindsight. It's good for seeing where you've been. It's good for testing the truth of what you think you know, but it can't tell you where you ought to go.
In some instances, the accuracy of past-life memories can be objectively verified, sometimes with remarkable detail.
One of the distinguishing features of anything that aspires to the name of science is the reproducibility of experimental results.
The scientific method actually correctly uses the most direct evidence as the most reliable, because that's the way you are least likely to get led astray into dead ends and to misunderstand your data.
The very nature of science is discoveries, and the best of those discoveries are the ones you don't expect.
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.
In fact, there was general agreement that minds can exist on nonbiological substrates and that algorithms are of central importance to the existence of minds.
No opposing quotes found.