Final answer:
Sam (Bosnian Pyramid) and Russ Breault (Shroud Encounters) are argued not to be using science because their claims lack empirical verification and adherence to the scientific method, which includes falsifiability, controlled experimentation, and repeatability. They often present anecdotal or mystical experiences as evidence, which cannot be objectively tested. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry promotes skepticism and rational explanations for claims outside the realm of science.
Step-by-step explanation:
When we say that individuals like Sam (Bosnian Pyramid) and Russ Breault (Shroud Encounters) are not using science to support their claims, we refer to the core principles of the scientific method. This method involves developing hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified through systematic empirical investigation. What differentiates science from other forms of knowledge is its reliance on evidence, repeatability, and the ability of others to verify results. Claims supported by consultations with a shaman or relying on anecdotal experiences, such as mystical encounters or unverified psychic phenomena, lack empirical verification and are not subject to rigorous, peer-reviewed scrutiny. These methods of enquiry do not adhere to the scientific criteria such as falsifiability, controlled experimentation, and reproducibility.
Moreover, relying on sacred texts or spiritual beliefs to substantiate claims about physical reality falls outside the scope of science. While different cultural perspectives may view the same object, like the meteorite in the American museum of natural history, with different interpretations (scientific or mystical), science restricts itself to evidence that is empirical and observable. Thus, groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry actively seek rational explanations for paranormal claims and encourage skepticism when evidence does not align with scientific standards.
Therefore, when examining claims in light of the scientific method, one must differentiate between what can be empirically verified and what rests solely on belief or subjective experience. This is why rational scrutiny often finds such claims unconvincing, as they lack the rational compulsion that is the hallmark of scientific conclusions.