Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
encouraged

What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi

41 posts in this topic

It is really neat that I could have put this in the Science and Technology catagory, too! I think there was some discussion a while back about evidences of of paranormal or such. Those people may find this interesting (bolding and color are mine.)

The Parapsychological Association is an international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psi (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition. The primary objective of the PA is to achieve a scientific understanding of these experiences.

First established in 1957, the PA has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969. The PA is a non-profit, non-adjudicating organization that endorses no ideologies or beliefs other than the value of rigorous scientific and scholarly inquiry.

Registration to the site is free. Affiliate membership is $US85.

arrow3.gifView: From

What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi?

Published by Parapsychological Association on Friday, February 11, 2011

To be precise, when we say that "X exists," we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects.

With this in mind, ESP exists, presentiment (physical changes in skin reactivity, pupil size, heart rate, and other factors indicating precognition before a stimulus is applied) exists, telepathy (direct mind-mind communication) exists, and mind-matter interaction (previously known as psychokinesis or PK) exists. The survival of bodily death remains unproven, though there is suggestive evidence for this from the reincarnation research performed by Ian Stevenson and others. (Note that we are using the terms ESP, telepathy and MMI in the technical sense, not in the popular sense. See What do parapsychologists study?)

ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.

Some mind-matter interaction (MMI) effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.

It should be noted that an increasing number of parapsychologists are moving beyond proof-oriented research (feeling that psi has already been sufficiently proven for anyone willing to actually read and consider the experimental research) to process-oriented, qualitative research. These studies are looking at a variety of factors (such as the kind of target used) to better understand these phenomena.

Edited by encouraged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This did not take long to find, and there are many, many, many of these....If it is to good to be true, it usually is :)

This greater willingness to study (alleged) psychic functioning of reported frauds was exemplified at the 1986 Parapsychological Association (PA) convention, where three papers presented work with persons previously reported to have engaged in fraudulent activity (Egely & Vertesy, 19863; Stewart, Roll, & Baumann, 19864; Warren & Don, 19865). This is not an isolated instance. As seen in the Table, every annual convention of the PA since 1980 has included papers reporting positive results from subjects who later admitted to or were reported as having used trickery at some point in their careers.

Much more at link below :

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really neat that I could have put this in the Science and Technology catagory, too! I think there was some discussion a while back about evidences of of paranormal or such. Those people may find this interesting (bolding and color are mine.)

Registration to the site is free. Affiliate membership is $US85.

arrow3.gifView: From

What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi?

Published by Parapsychological Association on Friday, February 11, 2011

To be precise, when we say that "X exists," we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects.

With this in mind, ESP exists, presentiment (physical changes in skin reactivity, pupil size, heart rate, and other factors indicating precognition before a stimulus is applied) exists, telepathy (direct mind-mind communication) exists, and mind-matter interaction (previously known as psychokinesis or PK) exists. The survival of bodily death remains unproven, though there is suggestive evidence for this from the reincarnation research performed by Ian Stevenson and others. (Note that we are using the terms ESP, telepathy and MMI in the technical sense, not in the popular sense. See What do parapsychologists study?)

ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.

Some mind-matter interaction (MMI) effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.

It should be noted that an increasing number of parapsychologists are moving beyond proof-oriented research (feeling that psi has already been sufficiently proven for anyone willing to actually read and consider the experimental research) to process-oriented, qualitative research. These studies are looking at a variety of factors (such as the kind of target used) to better understand these phenomena.

It dosnt matter what anyone finds or dosnt find my friend. The fact is that no matter how real or not real any of it is, people will continue to only accept explanations within their world view based on their own axioms. No matter how well the science is done Somone is always going to come up with a creative rebuttal... And materialist will jump on it as valed. I can give a wonderful creative explanation of why the sun actually rotates around the earth and if somone already believed it then it's truth. Of coure it cuts both ways. Those with command of rederik and charisma win the day.

All it takes is Somone to create plausable flaws in said experiments and a materialist will invalidate them instantly. Wether they are real results or not.

This did not take long to find, and there are many, many, many of these....If it is to good to be true, it usually is :)

This greater willingness to study (alleged) psychic functioning of reported frauds was exemplified at the 1986 Parapsychological Association (PA) convention, where three papers presented work with persons previously reported to have engaged in fraudulent activity (Egely & Vertesy, 19863; Stewart, Roll, & Baumann, 19864; Warren & Don, 19865). This is not an isolated instance. As seen in the Table, every annual convention of the PA since 1980 has included papers reporting positive results from subjects who later admitted to or were reported as having used trickery at some point in their careers.

Much more at link below :

See.., told yu. Even with Sakaris usual diligence the newest source in his link is from 1988. Yup 24 years ago. We barely had care phones then. The level io error avoidance is obviously much more sophisticated now, and results are much harder to fake. Not to mention experiments must be repeatable to be valed.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I would post such a thing is because it is under the AAAS. Well, that and my own experiences. I went through heaps of readings on precognition of every theory and every type to find nothing like that which I experience. And then came across this research. I consider it authoritative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I would post such a thing is because it is under the AAAS. Well, that and my own experiences. I went through heaps of readings on precognition of every theory and every type to find nothing like that which I experience. And then came across this research. I consider it authoritative.

Well yes. There are plenty of repeatable experiments out there That include locking people away from each other and scanning their brains. There are obviouse results. Now I must admit I have not followed through with researching the research. But I have not heard of any repetitions of the experiments with negative statistical results. Sounds like fun actually. I'll be back to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason I would post such a thing is because it is under the AAAS. Well, that and my own experiences. I went through heaps of readings on precognition of every theory and every type to find nothing like that which I experience. And then came across this research. I consider it authoritative.

Well, let's not get too carried away. That it is an affiliate of the AAAS is a fine thing, and that their membership has been challenged and was not revoked is a testament that they have kept to the guidelines of affiliation. That said, there are over 260 affiliates with the AAAS, and as long as these affiliates can actually demonstrate that they are legitimately and sincerely pursuing scientific research, that is really all it take. Being an affiliate of the AAAS does not automatically grant you the same credibility as the AAAS, nor does it mean the AAAS acknowledges (much less endorses) your findings.

That said, the Parapsychological Association has shown itself to be an honest, scientific, body. Yes, they have their problems and their rotten apples, but not really much more than any other academic field, and in all honesty, for a field like parapsychology, that's doing pretty darn good. Their work has been published in AAAS's journal, Nature, one of (possible even "the") most pre-eminent scientific journals on the planet. They are a respectable organization. and earned that respect in the same way all the others did: good science.

Now, like any other set of scientists, one has to be careful of what they are crediting to what. The OP is not, after all, a scientific argument. It is barely an association's postulate. It is not intended to, nor would any serious scientist consider it as, a definitive statement regarding the position of the Parapsychological Association. Yes, their mission statement is remarkably close, but let's not confuse what someone presents as a formal scientific study and what someone said on their FAQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It dosnt matter what anyone finds or dosnt find my friend. The fact is that no matter how real or not real any of it is, people will continue to only accept explanations within their world view based on their own axioms.

Again, this simply isn't true. Science doesn't go by what people want to be true or not. If something is real, and there is evidence for it, and experimentation supports this, and predictions can be made and theories formed, then it will become at accepted part of science.

Many prominent physicists at the beginning of the 20th century didn't want quantum physics to be real, as it was so completely unintuitive and so different to what was the accepted view of reality at the time.

And yet the predictions and experiments bore out the observations, and quantum physics has become the most accurate area of any science in terms of measurement, prediction and experiment.

This has never happened in the case of "psi". There is simply no evidence to build on.

No matter how well the science is done Somone is always going to come up with a creative rebuttal...

We've established before - and you're proving again - that you don't know how science works. Observation, measurement, prediction, theory. That is how it works, and if a phenomena exists, and you can measure it, then you can build a theory around it, and anyone who doesn't like it can make as many "creative rebuttals" as they want and it doesn't matter - if the science is strong enough it won't go away - it will become established and accepted.

This hasn't happened with "psi" because there is no evidence to measure.

And materialist will jump on it as valed.

I'm getting really bored of this "materialist" argument, saying that there are "materialist scientists" who refuse to look at the evidence for psi. There is no such thing as a "materialist scientist". You're either a scientist or not a scientist.

A proper scientist won't take here-say, anecdotes or youtube videos as evidence. When people argue against "material science", they're essentially just upset that there simply isn't evidence for things they want to be true, so have to turn to pseudo-science.

I can give a wonderful creative explanation of why the sun actually rotates around the earth and if somone already believed it then it's truth. Of coure it cuts both ways. Those with command of rederik and charisma win the day.

Again. Science simply does not work that way. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. Science simply does not work that way. At all.

it's not supposed to work that way is a more acurate statement. The nominal is quite different than the real. The proof is in your statement.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not supposed to work that way is a more acurate statement. The nominal is quite different than the real. The proof is in your statement.

No, it doesn't. Simply making up an explanation and having someone believe it is not science. Things become accepted in science because they have evidence, they can be used to make predictions, they are falsifiable, and are enforced by experimental data - and crucially this can be repeated by anyone with the right equipment.

You are making up your own definition of science and then saying "this is what science is and why I don't trust it".

Edited by Emma_Acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. Simply making up an explanation and having someone believe it is not science. Things become accepted in science because they have evidence, they can be used to make predictions, they are falsifiable, and are enforced by experimental data - and crucially this can be repeated by anyone with the right equipment.

You are making up your own definition of science and then saying "this is what science is and why I don't trust it".

You still fail to see the bigger picture... It's not science that is the problem it's the people that apply it. It's precisely why science is as stringent as it is. Unfortunately people can be very subversive. It's a plesent fiction that Memes, dogmas, and bias do not develop amoung scientific institutions. You said it yourself. Proponents of quantum physics had to fight through all of this to get their theories recognized as valed. It's a shame that that lesson was not really learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still fail to see the bigger picture... It's not science that is the problem it's the people that apply it. It's precisely why science is as stringent as it is. Unfortunately people can be very subversive. It's a plesent fiction that Memes, dogmas, and bias do not develop amoung scientific institutions. You said it yourself. Proponents of quantum physics had to fight through all of this to get their theories recognized as valed. It's a shame that that lesson was not really learned.

I'm afraid it is very much you who doesn't see it!

There is a reason why you have to battle to get new ideas accepted, why theories and hypotheses are torn apart to look for weaknesses, and why they're still torn apart, questioned, probed and doubted even after being generally accepted.

It's because that is science's main strength. It is constantly checking itself, constantly testing what is accepted as real.

The idea of "psi" is arguably as controversial as the idea of quantum physics was a hundred years ago. But the evidence was there, from many many different sources, experiments were done that agreed with observation, and very slowly - the way that science always works - the theory was built up, through constant testing and refinement.

There should be no special pleading. Every area of science has had to go through the same process, why should "psi" be treated any differently?

That is where this "materialist scientist" argument comes from. From people who believe in something that there simply is no evidence for, and has no grounding experimentally. So they invent different types of science, to try and convince themselves that normal, rational, "materialist" science is doing it wrong, a reason for why it is turning up no evidence for something they want to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Things become accepted in science because they have evidence, they can be used to make predictions, they are falsifiable, and are enforced by experimental data - and crucially this can be repeated by anyone with the right equipment.

And therein lies the problem.

How many people can afford or have access to equipment that can test whether photons really exhibit wave-particle duality? How many people get to actually see the structure of DNA for themselves? How many people can be there when the LHC is in operation and see the results for themselves?

The rest of us who do not have direct access to such equipment in order to test theories for ourselves are left with two choices. We can either believe what is claimed as evidence by such testing or we can consider that those results are being relayed to us by human beings. Human beings, a species whose members have proven time and time again to be after their own individual agendas whether those agendas drive them to be honest or dishonest.

I am no more likely to blindly believe what is published in scientific journals than what is written in the bible. I understand that unless I see it for my own eyes, I can't know that something is true. From my position of not having access to test or see them for myself, atoms, quarks and bosons are as unreal as ghosts or psi and without handing me the equipment to verify or disprove the existence of any of these things, you'll never prove or disprove to me that any of the above exists.

I'm not suggesting that all scientific findings are untrue, but that they are accepted by people as true without having performed the testing for themselves.

If psi is a real phenomenon, it is one that would by its own nature be difficult to test for. Not only is it described as fleeting and difficult to repeat, but seems more likely to occur in non-clinical situations. (being considered an underdeveloped human ability and possibly a phenomenon influenced by emotional states) It would take a lot of work and money to develop a system to even establish that it is worth looking into. Scientists won't put the time in because it appears to be an unfounded belief in something that does not exist. How hard would it be to get a grant for such a thing? I'm not sure but I could imagine someone who writes for such a grant getting laughed right out of the scientific community. Humans have egos and unless they lack rationality would not go after such a thing... and of course those that lack rationality ARE laughed at for being crazy enough to go after such fleeting concepts. I think this is what Seeker means, that because it has been so elusive it seems unlikely to exist; so why would the time be put into it, when they can get a nice solid paycheck by researching and furthering studies on well known or strongly hypothesized phenomena.

I have never witnessed anything resembling psi phenomenon so I have no opinion about its existence or lack thereof, but I would be curious in testing to see if it is a genuine phenomenon.

Edited by karmakazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And therein lies the problem.

How many people can afford or have access to equipment that can test whether photons really exhibit wave-particle duality? How many people get to actually see the structure of DNA for themselves? How many people can be there when the LHC is in operation and see the results for themselves?

I am no more likely to blindly believe what is published in scientific journals than what is written in the bible.

I'm not suggesting that all scientific findings are untrue, but that they are accepted by people as true without having performed the testing for themselves.

To be blunt - this is a problem that lies with you, not with science.

Firstly, how many people have access to such equipment? Lots. There are such a vast amount of people working in an area like physics that if something wasn't true, we'd know about it. Unless you're suggesting that every single person who works in physics today is in on some form of conspiracy?

Science is not a fascistic monolithic institution. Dissent is scrutinised, not crushed. You cannot be seriously entertaining the idea that every single physicist it either lying or ignorant about wave-particle duality. There's are tens of thousands of people working in the field of particle physics. If it wasn't a true reflection of reality, this would simply not be possible.

How do we know that physicists aren't lying or deluded? Because we see evidence of it in every day technology. If quantum physics didn't work, neither would your computer. Or your strip lighting. Or your hospital equipment.

Name one piece of technology built on fringe or pseudo science that actually works?

(Clue: there isn't one)

If psi is a real phenomenon, it is one that would by its own nature be difficult to test for.

Nope, sorry, this is called special pleading, and is a logical fallacy. It isn't accepted as a valid argument. If something exists, science can measure it. We can accurately describe particles so small that we would never be able to actually know they existed, and yet much of today's technology relies on what we know about the electron.

Saying "science can't measure this", is a cop out. Pure and simple.

Scientists won't put the time in because it appears to be an unfounded belief in something that does not exist.

That's not true at all. Science is about learning the mysteries of the universe. Nothing would change the world more than discovering something like psi actually exists.

The problem is, at a very very basic level - and I can't stress this enough - there is no evidence for psi - there is nothing to investigate.

I think this is what Seeker means, that because it has been so elusive it seems unlikely to exist; so why would the time be put into it, when they can get a nice solid paycheck by researching and furthering studies on well known or strongly hypothesized phenomena.

You really, really need to put some time in learning about how science as an industry works.

Edited by Emma_Acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm afraid it is very much you who doesn't see it!

There is a reason why you have to battle to get new ideas accepted, why theories and hypotheses are torn apart to look for weaknesses, and why they're still torn apart, questioned, probed and doubted even after being generally accepted.

It's because that is science's main strength. It is constantly checking itself, constantly testing what is accepted as real.

The idea of "psi" is arguably as controversial as the idea of quantum physics was a hundred years ago. But the evidence was there, from many many different sources, experiments were done that agreed with observation, and very slowly - the way that science always works - the theory was built up, through constant testing and refinement.

There should be no special pleading. Every area of science has had to go through the same process, why should "psi" be treated any differently?

That is where this "materialist scientist" argument comes from. From people who believe in something that there simply is no evidence for, and has no grounding experimentally. So they invent different types of science, to try and convince themselves that normal, rational, "materialist" science is doing it wrong, a reason for why it is turning up no evidence for something they want to be true.

Certainly that effort will never be put in will it? Once someone has placed their faith in a particular axiom ( I think that's the right word... Maby paradime would be better) , reguardless ... There is no point in persuing evidence of another unless it fits within that paradime. The realm of spirituality is immaterial and personal. Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective. that dosnt mean it can't be detected. There are surely things that cross over, but quantifying highly personal experiences is nearly impossible, and as a rule are thrown out or placed into the materialistic axiom, where it might not belong.

A good Example are NDEs. We know that they happen, we can come up with a fairly acurate statistic of how many people in those circumstances will rememder the experience, Many doctors ( scientists) have validated that people are observing things they shouldn't. It will repeat over and over again. ( it's just not that easy to reproduce).

Then I read the accepted "scientific" rebuttles of NDEs, that amount to wild speculation. My favorite being a race memory from being born with the birth canal being the tunnel and the doctors light being the bright light. Funny.

It's clear.... So clear... that if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist. And those rare few that are willing to investigate and drop their bias must then also be the rare few who can endure ridicule, rich because they won't have a job or a real career, and diligent enough to swim against the stream.

Even if methodology is presteine it will always be labeled psudoscience. No matter how acurate the data, no matter what the integrity of the scientist, no matter how many repeatable trials.

Materialism as a meam just like religion has built in mechanisms to defend itself from threats. Most Christians will tell you their view is right because the bible says so, and the bible is the direct communication of the creator himself that says anything you gear different is wrong so don't even listen. Materialists will tell you that they are right because materialistic methods have not discovered anything that is not material so anything someone says or discovers to the contrary is wrong so don't listen. You can see the white blood cells of materialism hard at work on these forums daily. They will even take the time to debunk a 14 year old claiming to have the power to kill things and resurrect them. And they are very seriouse.

Fundamentalism is pretty easy to identify sophisticated or not,

Seeker out.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Saying "science can't measure this", is a cop out. Pure and simple"

There are strikingly similar statements in the bible. Fundis are fundies no matter where they reside.

My point made.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be blunt - this is a problem that lies with you, not with science.

Firstly, how many people have access to such equipment? Lots. There are such a vast amount of people working in an area like physics that if something wasn't true, we'd know about it. Unless you're suggesting that every single person who works in physics today is in on some form of conspiracy?

Science is not a fascistic monolithic institution. Dissent is scrutinised, not crushed. You cannot be seriously entertaining the idea that every single physicist it either lying or ignorant about wave-particle duality. There's are tens of thousands of people working in the field of particle physics. If it wasn't a true reflection of reality, this would simply not be possible.

How do we know that physicists aren't lying or deluded? Because we see evidence of it in every day technology. If quantum physics didn't work, neither would your computer. Or your strip lighting. Or your hospital equipment.

Name one piece of technology built on fringe or pseudo science that actually works?

(Clue: there isn't one)

Nope, sorry, this is called special pleading, and is a logical fallacy. It isn't accepted as a valid argument. If something exists, science can measure it. We can accurately describe particles so small that we would never be able to actually know they existed, and yet much of today's technology relies on what we know about the electron.

Saying "science can't measure this", is a cop out. Pure and simple.

That's not true at all. Science is about learning the mysteries of the universe. Nothing would change the world more than discovering something like psi actually exists.

The problem is, at a very very basic level - and I can't stress this enough - there is no evidence for psi - there is nothing to investigate.

You really, really need to put some time in learning about how science as an industry works.

By misunderstanding my point you've illustrated it beautifully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the OP is a paragraph that I feel is paramount, if we are going to find proof of the paranormal:

ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.

One OBE researcher has been known to put geometric symbols in the corner of heart surgical units. I would suspect him to get the same statistical deviation of the random number generator ESP experiments. In other words, have to accumulate tens of thousands of events to find a significant statistical deviation. However, if those were put on the top of the hair bonnets or caps of the surgical staff, I suspect the deviation would increase. And better yet, if a name tag of some other individual were fastened to the bonnet or cap, a higher figure even yet would be obtained. And best of all, also a projection of a real-time, live video image of his family in the waiting room, awaiting the surgical outcome and to see him again. Have in the image a real time, live background of some place, and the activities of people or animals in that location (via blue screen), to be described by the patient in event of an OBE.

Thus the experiment has been transformed from a purely inanimate object, meaningless relationship to an extremely meaningful relationship experiment.

[And while I have some one's attention, also have a "yoked sleep" experiment in which the person yoked to the patient is to dream what is available from the mind of the patient during that surgical prep-to-awakening time. Have that person relate his dreams regardless of an OBE having happened.]

The principal I am trying to relate is an outcome of Dr. Ken Pike and my discussions, during a time when he was considering thoughts concerning the possibilities of a "Meaning Based Philosophical System" (SIL Norman, Summer, 1986.) Having set me on that path of thought, coupled with my own interpretations of my own unique experiences, I came to realize that my paranormal experiences were coupled to meaningful relationships, and meaningful relationships are a result of the association living creatures have with one another, be they friends or unknown previously to them.

Such a discussion obviously precludes a discussion on if the paranormal exists, and has as an assumption, that kinds of paranormal activities backed by huge numbers of anecdotal descriptions do indeed exist. Thus the discussion would continue but not on the basis of if or not the paranormal exists but rather the improvement, possible results, opinions , etc. of such an experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly that effort will never be put in will it? Once someone has placed their faith in a particular axiom ( I think that's the right word... Maby paradime would be better) , reguardless ... There is no point in persuing evidence of another unless it fits within that paradime.

Only if you insist on believing that scientists believe scientific methodology is complete and infallible. Real scientists, of course, know better.

The simple fact of the matter (and yes, it is a simple fact, non-negotiable, and a matter of historical record) is that the axioms and paradigms of science were not dictated by either whim or fancy. Every single one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology exists solely because science encountered something in reality which did not fit into its previous rules, and so it did the intelligent thing and changed its rules to fit reality.

Every single axiom and rule of scientific methodology applies to every single theory in existence. No exceptions. Everything from the most cutting edge theories of quantum physics to the most ancient and utterly over-proven Pythagorean Theorem, every single one keeps to the same pre-requisites prior to being considered scientific. There is no special pleading. There is no grandfathering.

Nor are the paradigms written in stone. Indeed, the latest of these pre-requisites was put into place in the 1940's. And, like all the others, the rule had to apply to every single theory out there.

The realm of spirituality is immaterial and personal. Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective.

No, it does not. This has been explained to you. Examples have been show to you. At this point, if you continue insisting on it, you are either intentionally denying it or simply do not understand it. Either way, it is your issue, not that of science.

Science does not focus exclusively on materialism and objectivity. If it is shown that a logical argument will support a theory, and the logical argument meets all the prerequisites of scientific methodology, it will be accepted as valid (whether it is accepted as correct is a different matter altogether).

It's clear.... So clear... that if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist.

Possibly, though not at all necessarily, as far as logic goes.

Misleading, if not downright deceptive, as far as actual accuracy goes.

"Materialists" and "scientists" are not interchangeable. To pretend they are is to either be ignorant of their definitions or intentionally attempting to take advantage of the ignorance of others to convince them you are correct by misleading them.

Personally, I don't believe you are ignorant.

When all is said and done, if people wish for the paranormal or the supernatural to be considered scientific, they need to do either one of two things:

1) They can meet all the currently existing pre-requisites of scientific methodology, just like every single other theory in existence does, or...

2) They can create a new pre-requisite, which universally defines the new data, and which applies both to present, future, and past, theories. Just like all the other pre-requisites do. Just like Karl Popper did in the 1940's.

Referring to others as "copping out" because they are following rules that have been proven and shown to apply to every existing theory, past and present, while not showing an alternative method of either applying a rule, or a new rule altogether, has a name, but I tend to simplify it to two simple terms, depending on the general attitude of the people using that argument.

The first is "Whining". The second is "Sour Grapes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Only if you insist on believing that scientists believe scientific methodology is complete and infallible.

The simple fact of the matter (and yes, it is a simple fact, non-negotiable, and a matter of historical record) is that the axioms and paradigms of science were not dictated by either whim or fancy. Every single one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology exists solely because science encountered something in reality which did not fit into its previous rules, and so it did the intelligent thing and changed its rules to fit reality.

Every single axiom and rule of scientific methodology applies to every single theory in existence. No exceptions. Everything from the most cutting edge theories of quantum physics to the most ancient and utterly over-proven Pythagorean Theorem, every single one keeps to the same pre-requisites prior to being considered scientific. There is no special pleading. There is no grandfathering.

Nor are the paradigms written in stone. Indeed, the latest of these pre-requisites was put into place in the 1940's. And, like all the others, the rule had to apply to every single theory out there.

No, it does not. This has been explained to you. Examples have been show to you. At this point, if you continue insisting on it, you are either intentionally denying it or simply do not understand it. Either way, it is your issue, not that of science.

Science does not focus exclusively on materialism and objectivity. If it is shown that a logical argument will support a theory, and the logical argument meets all the prerequisites of scientific methodology, it will be accepted as valid (whether it is accepted as correct is a different matter altogether).

Possibly, though not at all necessarily, as far as logic goes.

Misleading, if not downright deceptive, as far as actual accuracy goes.

"Materialists" and "scientists" are not interchangeable. To pretend they are is to either be ignorant of their definitions or intentionally attempting to take advantage of the ignorance of others to convince them you are correct by misleading them.

Personally, I don't believe you are ignorant.

When all is said and done, if people wish for the paranormal or the supernatural to be considered scientific, they need to do either one of two things:

1) They can meet all the currently existing pre-requisites of scientific methodology, just like every single other theory in existence does, or...

2) They can create a new pre-requisite, which universally defines the new data, and which applies both to present, future, and past, theories. Just like all the other pre-requisites do. Just like Karl Popper did in the 1940's.

Referring to others as "copping out" because they are following rules that have been proven and shown to apply to every existing theory, past and present, while not showing an alternative method of either applying a rule, or a new rule altogether, has a name, but I tend to simplify it to two simple terms, depending on the general attitude of the people using that argument.

The first is "Whining". The second is "Sour Grapes"

You still think I'm talking about science itself... Im not never have been. People, politics, dogma, rederik. I guess scientists are so enlightened that the are immune to these things?

"Real scientists, of course, know better."

See. That is 80% of what I have been getting at.

The proof is in your statements aswell. You assume and keep saying I don't understand science or the methodology. I understand it just fine. I have a degree in economics ( also uses the scientific method) I used to tutor statistics and econometrics... A dozen years ago.

Just because I dont agree or have the faith in it that you do... You keep saying it's been explained to me and in just being stubborn to the truth,,, it's sounds horrendously like my arguments with Christians and the their literal view of the bible. Certainly more sophisticated but very similar,

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people can afford or have access to equipment that can test whether photons really exhibit wave-particle duality? How many people get to actually see the structure of DNA for themselves? How many people can be there when the LHC is in operation and see the results for themselves?

A surprising amount, actually. In fact, you have to reserve time on the equipment often months in advance, just because of the demand.

Let's face it: The problem is not that people cannot repeat the experiments. The problem is that you have difficulty trusting the people who have.

The rest of us who do not have direct access to such equipment in order to test theories for ourselves are left with two choices. We can either believe what is claimed as evidence by such testing or we can consider that those results are being relayed to us by human beings. Human beings, a species whose members have proven time and time again to be after their own individual agendas whether those agendas drive them to be honest or dishonest.

And here is where the perceptual error begins to crop up. Here is where we slowly move away from the relevance of scientific methodology, to the relevance of personal confidence.

So, let's focus on this for a bit: For starters, you (and I mean the "general" you, not "you" specifically, Karma) you know damn well that you do not have the academic or technical knowledge to even identify atoms, quarks, and bosons, let alone test the theories that use these just as the basic vocabulary of the field. So, right off the bat, let's discard the ridiculous notion that we cannot believe in something unless we ourselves actually do it. Really, think about it: Most people don't even apply this sort of thinking to their own cars or AC equipment. Could you earn the academic and technical knowledge to fix your own car and your own AC? Of course. Do you? No. You get a person who has the knowledge and experience to do it for you. You hire a professional.

And, just to forestall any nit-picky arguments, I reiterate, I am speaking generally. I am not referring to people who actually are car mechanics or AC repairmen.

You don't hire a professional intending to trust them without question. Nor do you hire a professional intending to run the same test that he did and confirm for yourself that what they claim is actually true. You are perfectly willing to recognize that they know more and have more experience than you do on that particular subject. That is not the problem.

The problem is, simply put, that you are simply uncomfortable in placing your trust on them. Most people would absolutely love to know everything about a bunch of different topics, but the reality of the matter is that we don't, we can't, and we have to trust that experts do, at least, in their own fields. What we do not have to do is trust blindly. We check into the credibility of our experts. We check into their past jobs. We check into their current status. We check into who has validated their work. In other words, even though we do not have the ability to check their work ourselves, we do have the ability to check the likelihood that they are either lying or telling the truth.

It is of utmost importance to be able to understand our true reasons for our actions, rather than the logical reasons we habitually impose over what are really emotionally based decisions. Behaviour tends to be the truest indicator of when we are caught up in our own hypocrisy. If we, regardless of whether we are believers, skeptics, materialists, scientists, or even psychics, tend to use different behaviours, different standards, for what is essentially the same problem, then it may well be a sign that we have, at some point, made an assumption that we should not have made.

We can't claim that a lack of knowledge of car repair can be resolved through "trust, but verify" of an expert, but then turn around and claim the same does not apply to lack of knowledge regarding particle physics. The problem is, essentially the same in terms of data, and in terms of significance, I would argue that the car is likely of more immediate impact to one's life than current research in quantum physics. And it is almost nonsensical to claim that no one is going to research something that has no material evidence of its existence while using examples of quantum science. We do try to be logical, but we keep getting caught in logical fallacies; If we assume all scientists are materialistic, of course it is going to make sense that scientists would rather have a reliable paycheck, as opposed to scientific immortality. But we cannot assume that, and then state that humans have egos, and occasionally act irrationally. We cannot use two standards for the same behaviour, and still expect things to make sense. Behaviour tends to remain constant; where we confused is with the reasons we tend to give for our behaviours. I have found a handy rule of thumb to be the following: "Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality".

If you find yourself confused, perhaps, somewhere along the line, something that you believe is fiction.

When all is said and done, scientists do research the paranormal. Grants are given for that research, provided the scientists have shown themselves to be credible. Scientists, on a fairly regular basis, do theoretical research, which means observation and material results are not the primary means of gathering data.

When all is said and done, new phenomena is discovered. If the prerequisites of scientific methodology cannot account for it, the prerequisites are either changed or added on to. Every single scientific theory in existence meets these prerequisites. In other words, the prerequisites are not what human research demands from nature; The prerequisites are what nature itself has shown us to apply to reality. And, yes, we are still discovering them.

When all is said and done...it is conceit to think that we need to personally verify everything prior to believing. Not only that, but if we truly do believe it, yet our behaviour shows otherwise, it is also self-deception, and that is a fault of Ego. The conflict between science and belief rarely has to do with intelligence or data. More often than not, the problem is communication between people. And most tellingly, the debate most often centers around trust. Those that declare that too much of it is demanded, and those who declare that none is needed at all.

The simple fact that we are human would indicate that the true answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You still think I'm talking about science itself...

No, I do not. I think that you are using a strawman argument by creating a false definition of science as materialistic and then using that to support your claims that we should not use scientific standards for the spiritual because the paranormal is not materialistic.

Basically, I believe you are intentionally wrong in defining science, I believe you are conceptually wrong in equating spirituality with the paranormal, and I believe that your primary tactic is not even to use your strawman to logically show the opposing thought to be wrong, but simply to give you something to ridicule in your opponent, in the hopes that no one actually notices you haven't really shown why it is actually wrong.

Im not never have been. People, politics, dogma, rederik. I guess scientists are so enlightened that the are immune to these things?

Case in point.

"Real scientists, of course, know better."

See. That is 80% of what I have been getting at.

I'm sure it is. I have no doubt whatsoever that you want people to see this as nothing more than scientific arrogance.

It is, after all, much better then having people stop, think about it, and consider:

"Y'know...maybe it does make sense that a real scientist actually does know better at how science works. Kinda like a car mechanic does actually know better how a car works. Maybe the guy who apparently has some thing about science, judging by his personal comments, is wrong when he implies that scientists are so confident in their infallibility that they won't ever bother to look for other phenomena or explanations"

The proof is in your statements aswell. You assume and keep saying I don't understand science or the methodology. I understand it just fine. I have a degree in economics ( also uses the scientific method) I used to tutor statistics and econometrics... A dozen years ago.

Like I said, I don't believe you are ignorant.

Just because I dont agree or have the faith in it that you do...

And this after I wrote that entire thing about the role of faith vs. trust when coming to a conclusion...

You keep saying it's been explained to me and in just being stubborn to the truth,,,

Not at all. This has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with accuracy. That you agree, disagree, whatever, I don't really care, however, that you continue to define science incorrectly, after it has been pointed out to you numerous times that the definition is incorrect, and then, whats more, go on to base your entire position on that incorrect definition, and on top of that, ridicule science for holding to a false definition that you created, that has been refuted, both by fact, by explanation, and by example, and which you continue, even now, to try an draw attention away from, by pretending that I am trying to talk about science, as opposed to highlighting the fundamental flaw on which your entire argument hinges...

it's sounds horrendously like my arguments with Christians and the their literal view of the bible. Certainly more sophisticated but very similar,

Nope. Didn't work. Attention is still on target.

"It's clear.... So clear..."

Yes. It really, really, is.

-Every reason you give in claiming that scientific standards should not apply to the paranormal is based on the false premise that science is materialistic.

-Every rebuttal is actually nothing more than an Appeal to Ridicule.

-Even if we accept as true, just as a "given" assumption, the concept that science is materialistic, there is still no argument which shows it to actually be wrong. The basic implication is that because it is materialistic, it is wrong. No explanation is given as to why this conclusion should be accepted.

But even beyond that it the general thrust of the conversation which revolves around the concept of trust. In all the efforts made to show why science should not be trusted to make conclusions regarding the subject of the paranormal, because of people are putting their blind faith in the words of scientist (which, in and of itself is a false assumption), and that all the safeguards and rules specifically created by science to verify and validate knowledgeable are not infallible, a pretty important point is somewhat glossed over:

What, exactly, is the alternative, and how does it require less faith, let alone blind faith, to believe in? What other method of validating a given claim is being proposed here?

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Aquatus... Brother ... Listen. I do not have a problem with science, and I do apologize. many times when makeing a generalization I remember to put (. "not all" ) before I make it. Many times I forget. Not all scientists are materialists. But I keep telling you the problem lies not in science the problem lies in people... Then I gave you examples. I'm not trying to draw attention away from anything. I'm only speaking the truth of my perceptions. I don't have the agenda you might think I do.

Don't you get it yet.. I can tell you are smart and passionate, so listen for a second. The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias.... Still listening? Most "real" scientists understand this. That is why there are spiritual scientists more educated than you or I. Those scientists understand That the two occupy different places. One is philosophy, one is verifiable science, still another is personal experience. They understand the meams of certain environments. Many ( spiritual or not) understand that politics, bias, dogma, charismatic leaders, and guruship that have to be overcome... Still others understand that some are passionatly oposed to certain concepts and creative genuses at tearing it down ( we are talking about scientists here.., very smart people that can be just as misdirected as others). Dont Deni it aquatus. I have read the personal accounts of those in volved in COBE. ( discovered the cosmic background radiation). I have read the personal struggles of how the the first guy that understood how string theory should have eleven dimensions. How he was rudiculed. Could not get grad students to help him in the tremendous work load.., only to one day be validated because Somone higher up the chain started thinking the same way. You might want to pay attention to the trials, struggles, and red tape that our celebrated scientists went through in their own words. Then you will see why I mistrust. It's from the horses mouth.

Seriously have you read explanations for NDEs, OBEs.,, that are neither verified, backed up with evidence, predictable, or even plausable. ( see my earlier favorite). Is this science? Really?

Have you read the "scientific" explanations behind the quantum eraser? Some if the involving electrons bouncing back In tine.

Have you read the final rebuttal and story behind the ganzfield experiments. Repeating the experiment until finally Somobify makes a change that "fixes" it. How one very noteworthy scientist had to keep his name off the paper validating it because everything he did gets pushed through a little easier to be published.

It goes on and on. Read my blogs ... Going back 4 months. am I crazy. If I am delusional, why? Watch out when I point out materialist assumptions.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatus... Brother ... Listen. I do not have a problem with science, and I do apologize. many times when makeing a generalization I remember to put (. "not all" ) before I make it. Many times I forget. Not all scientists are materialists.

Yeah, you're batting pretty close to 100 on forgetting that.

But I keep telling you the problem lies not in science the problem lies in people... Then I gave you examples. I'm not trying to draw attention away from anything. I'm only speaking the truth of my perceptions. I don't have the agenda you might think I do.

Then you are doing a pretty bad job both explaining it and giving examples. When you say things like:

"Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective."

"...if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist. "

"Even if methodology is presteine it will always be labeled psudoscience. No matter how acurate the data, no matter what the integrity of the scientist, no matter how many repeatable trials. "

"Fundamentalism is pretty easy to identify sophisticated or not,"

It is pretty hard not to notice a certain trend. In my previous response to Karmakazi, I pointed out how behaviour tends to be a bit more honest than our words. You can claim that you are talking about people, not scientists, but when all of your examples are about scientists, and you specifically address science in a derogatory or dismissive manner:

"Saying "science can't measure this", is a cop out. Pure and simple"

There are strikingly similar statements in the bible. Fundis are fundies no matter where they reside.

My point made.

It is pretty difficult to not see your continuous emphasis on science.

Don't you get it yet..

I do. I even posted my own comments regarding the human aspect of perception in my response to KarmaKazi. I am a little surprised that you haven't commented on that, although, to be fair, it was a post directed at another member.

I can tell you are smart and passionate, so listen for a second. The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias.... Still listening? Most "real" scientists understand this.

Yes, Seeker, they do. Now, do you understand when I tell you that science does actually account for that? That what you are talking about has been known for quite some time?

That is why there are spiritual scientists more educated than you or I. Those scientists understand That the two occupy different places. One is philosophy, one is verifiable science, still another is personal experience. They understand the meams of certain environments. Many ( spiritual or not) understand that politics, bias, dogma, charismatic leaders, and guruship that have to be overcome... Still others understand that some are passionatly oposed to certain concepts and creative genuses at tearing it down ( we are talking about scientists here.., very smart people that can be just as misdirected as others). Dont Deni it aquatus.

Whose denying it? I am telling you that not only is it not denied, it is an acknowledge and accepted part of academia. It is one of the most common truisms in science: The strength of a theory is its ability to outlive its detractors.

I have read the personal accounts of those in volved in COBE. ( discovered the cosmic background radiation). I have read the personal struggles of how the the first guy that understood how string theory should have eleven dimensions. How he was rudiculed. Could not get grad students to help him in the tremendous work load.., only to one day be validated because Somone higher up the chain started thinking the same way. You might want to pay attention to the trials, struggles, and red tape that our celebrated scientists went through in their own words. Then you will see why I mistrust. It's from the horses mouth.

Do you really think this is an unknown? Has anything anyone on this site ever said even implied that getting a theory accepted was anything other than hard, unforgiving, often unrewarding, labor?

It is pretty much a given for everyone else. If you want to change the world, don't expect to go unchallenged. You learned as a child that life wasn't fair.

Seriously have you read explanations for NDEs, OBEs.,, that are neither verified, backed up with evidence, predictable, or even plausable. ( see my earlier favorite). Is this science? Really?

Yes, I have read quite a few in my time. Being that I made sure to read ones from credible sources, it is of little surprise that I found them to be quite plausible. That is why I spend time making sure the sources are credible; so I don't waste my time reading an explanation only to find out there is no way to determine its plausibility.

It would be good if you take a look at my response to Karma. I talked about most of this already.

Have you read the "scientific" explanations behind the quantum eraser? Some if the involving electrons bouncing back In tine.

Have you read the final rebuttal and story behind the ganzfield experiments. Repeating the experiment until finally Somobify makes a change that "fixes" it. How one very noteworthy scientist had to keep his name off the paper validating it because everything he did gets pushed through a little easier to be published.

Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science?

It goes on and on. Read my blogs ... Going back 4 months. am I crazy. If I am delusional, why? Watch out when I point out materialist assumptions.

People actively and aggressively rebutting your efforts is part and parcel of the human experience. It is not, in any way, limited to to science or materialism. Why haven't you talked about the times when religions have exhibited this exact same behaviour to keep outsiders from gaining power? Why haven't you mentioned that two of Porter's Five Forces specifically requires one to deeply analyze and determine the threats from this exact behaviour in the business world? Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason why you haven't even considered giving examples other than scientific examples is because you don't really care about the behaviour as a behaviour, but rather as an excuse to dismiss the incredibly rigorous standards of science?

You don't find it ironic that your first post on this thread is a dismissal of dismissal? This didn't twig any red flags in your logic circuits that perhaps a fallacy might be lurking in your reasoning somewhere? Have you noticed that, in the three times (or four?) that you tried to equate responses to your points to religious responses (the implication being that religious responses are inherently invalid or unreasonable), you yourself have not actually offered an alternative method of validation or verification? If I were to use your tactic of equating this to religious responses, I would point out the similarities with the Creationist habit of focusing on a Strawman argument of evolution, without offering a better explanation of their own.

But far be it from me to propose an untestable hypothesis. Forget science. Forget scientists. Forget the Prerequisites of scientific methodology. Let's take it as a given for this argument that they don't exist.

Please, tell me: How would you go about validating the existence of psi? Earlier, you mentioned: "The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias." Feel free to expand on that. How would you distinguish it from the explanations that you currently consider unverified, unsupported, unpredictable, and even outright implausible? How would your alternative decrease the influence of the human behaviour we have been talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A surprising amount, actually. In fact, you have to reserve time on the equipment often months in advance, just because of the demand.

It's not really a surprising amount. I'm going on older census figures but 4% was the amount of science and engineering workforce in the US in 1999 (sources: S&E Workforce Census Data and obviously it would have increased since then)

Compare that to the number of people believing in the paranormal which is about 3 in 4 people in the US. Sources (Increase in Paranormal Belief 3 in 4 Believe Paranormal)

There is a huge difference in the amount of those who work in the scientific profession and the general population, and there is a higher percentage that believe in the paranormal than the percentage of scientific profession.

I appologize because my original post did not at all get the point across that I was trying to make. I have the habit of occasionally explaining my point without actually stating it... urgh.

Anyway, I was trying to speak to the psychology of people as to why they (in general) either have to believe scientific findings or choose not to. It's more philosophical than anything. The problem itself is generalizations. We say the terms here : atheists, scientists, christians, believers, and in doing so we are generalizing and marginalizing each other. Not you and I specifically, I mean in the forums... in society.

Let's face it: The problem is not that people cannot repeat the experiments. The problem is that you have difficulty trusting the people who have.

It's not that I don't trust scientists unilaterally. I do in general trust the findings. A lot of people aren't reading the scientist's own paper about their findings... they're hearing or reading a news story about it that summarizes or worse yet from a friend who saw the news story. For the most part that's fine, but occasionally it can skew the understanding of what the findings were in the first place. When I spoke of human falliability I meant the entire chain... the way that the information disseminates out to the "every man" involves a lot of people along the way and everyone puts their own spin on it. A lot of what people are walking around thinking is accepted science is nothing that was actually reported by any scientist.

Then there are those occasional little bits.... like lemmings. I was taught several things in school that weren't true to begin with, but were accepted. I wasn't saying I believe nothing but I was saying that I don't just believe everything I hear either.

The problem is, simply put, that you are simply uncomfortable in placing your trust on them. Most people would absolutely love to know everything about a bunch of different topics, but the reality of the matter is that we don't, we can't, and we have to trust that experts do, at least, in their own fields. What we do not have to do is trust blindly. We check into the credibility of our experts. We check into their past jobs. We check into their current status. We check into who has validated their work. In other words, even though we do not have the ability to check their work ourselves, we do have the ability to check the likelihood that they are either lying or telling the truth.

You may do so, but you cannot say the same for the general populace. Then again, most of the general populace may find the findings interesting when they hear about them but probably don't give them the attention you or I would...

But I'm generalizing and that's where misunderstanding comes in again.

When all is said and done...it is conceit to think that we need to personally verify everything prior to believing. Not only that, but if we truly do believe it, yet our behaviour shows otherwise, it is also self-deception, and that is a fault of Ego. The conflict between science and belief rarely has to do with intelligence or data. More often than not, the problem is communication between people. And most tellingly, the debate most often centers around trust. Those that declare that too much of it is demanded, and those who declare that none is needed at all.

The simple fact that we are human would indicate that the true answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're batting pretty close to 100 on forgetting that.

Then you are doing a pretty bad job both explaining it and giving examples. When you say things like:

"Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective."

"...if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist. "

"Even if methodology is presteine it will always be labeled psudoscience. No matter how acurate the data, no matter what the integrity of the scientist, no matter how many repeatable trials. "

"Fundamentalism is pretty easy to identify sophisticated or not,"

It is pretty hard not to notice a certain trend. In my previous response to Karmakazi, I pointed out how behaviour tends to be a bit more honest than our words. You can claim that you are talking about people, not scientists, but when all of your examples are about scientists, and you specifically address science in a derogatory or dismissive manner:

It is pretty difficult to not see your continuous emphasis on science.

I do. I even posted my own comments regarding the human aspect of perception in my response to KarmaKazi. I am a little surprised that you haven't commented on that, although, to be fair, it was a post directed at another member.

Yes, Seeker, they do. Now, do you understand when I tell you that science does actually account for that? That what you are talking about has been known for quite some time?

Whose denying it? I am telling you that not only is it not denied, it is an acknowledge and accepted part of academia. It is one of the most common truisms in science: The strength of a theory is its ability to outlive its detractors.

Do you really think this is an unknown? Has anything anyone on this site ever said even implied that getting a theory accepted was anything other than hard, unforgiving, often unrewarding, labor?

It is pretty much a given for everyone else. If you want to change the world, don't expect to go unchallenged. You learned as a child that life wasn't fair.

Yes, I have read quite a few in my time. Being that I made sure to read ones from credible sources, it is of little surprise that I found them to be quite plausible. That is why I spend time making sure the sources are credible; so I don't waste my time reading an explanation only to find out there is no way to determine its plausibility.

It would be good if you take a look at my response to Karma. I talked about most of this already.

Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science?

People actively and aggressively rebutting your efforts is part and parcel of the human experience. It is not, in any way, limited to to science or materialism. Why haven't you talked about the times when religions have exhibited this exact same behaviour to keep outsiders from gaining power? Why haven't you mentioned that two of Porter's Five Forces specifically requires one to deeply analyze and determine the threats from this exact behaviour in the business world? Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason why you haven't even considered giving examples other than scientific examples is because you don't really care about the behaviour as a behaviour, but rather as an excuse to dismiss the incredibly rigorous standards of science?

You don't find it ironic that your first post on this thread is a dismissal of dismissal? This didn't twig any red flags in your logic circuits that perhaps a fallacy might be lurking in your reasoning somewhere? Have you noticed that, in the three times (or four?) that you tried to equate responses to your points to religious responses (the implication being that religious responses are inherently invalid or unreasonable), you yourself have not actually offered an alternative method of validation or verification? If I were to use your tactic of equating this to religious responses, I would point out the similarities with the Creationist habit of focusing on a Strawman argument of evolution, without offering a better explanation of their own.

But far be it from me to propose an untestable hypothesis. Forget science. Forget scientists. Forget the Prerequisites of scientific methodology. Let's take it as a given for this argument that they don't exist.

Please, tell me: How would you go about validating the existence of psi? Earlier, you mentioned: "The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias." Feel free to expand on that. How would you distinguish it from the explanations that you currently consider unverified, unsupported, unpredictable, and even outright implausible? How would your alternative decrease the influence of the human behaviour we have been talking about?

"Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science"

I have, I have , I have :). The underlying theme in all of it is sophisticated creativity.

About me not mentioning religions, I have. Look back carefully. if you were religious attempting to proove how your thinking was superior I would be just the same. I'm not religious in the traditional sense.

See now you have moved from Arguing the subject material to arguing about arguing. I don't have a problem with science, I have said it over and over again. My wife just purchased a hawking book from amazon for my birthday..., ( i didfnt tell her I already have it) hmmm now why would she do that. Possibly because she sees me reading it all the time.

It is a straw man on your part to keep representing me that way. I have made it clear that it's people that cause dogma, politics, rederick, guru ship. I am well aware that the method ATTEMPTS to correct for this. In fact... That's partially what I think is going on. The people trying to bring this material to light are slowly starting to gain ground and are starting to jump through the hoops, get around the bias and red tape and cull the necessary minds. Alchemy today chemistry tomorrow. in tge end the "skeptics" may be remembered as "world is flat" people. Time will tell.

I do have a method aquatus... I can proove it to YOU.... I can also proove it to anyone willing to put in the time and energy... Just as karmajazi was discussing with Emma. The problem lies with the individual. I have to take the quantum esraser on faith because at this moment I am incapable of performing and experiencing the experiments myself. The same things apply. to get there It can take a long time.. Or it can happen right away. But I am certain with the right effort anyone can understand. Buy few do. One skeptic.. Was brave enough to at least try. But like I warned him it takes a little more effort than a passing intrest. Just as it would to get a degree in physics.

What do you say aquatus are you willing to put your time and energy where your mouth is. I will be your personal tutor. I have explored and understand ( for the most part) science aswell the otherside of the coin. I understand your perspective, I was you once. But cannot begin to understand unless you have both perspectives. I'm not talking about telekinesis and teenage super powers I'm talking about things much more interested.

What do you say? Do you want to experience it for yourself? Are you willing to give honest effort? Do you really want to see? Or are you content with your bias and jargon that is simply regurgitation of your indoctrination? Yes I said it. You are indoctrinated into specific way of thinking that has it's own built in self defense mechanisms to hold you here. Not unlike christanity or Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.