Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why Skeptics never accept existence of psi


rashore

Recommended Posts

Quote

Guest post: Why Skeptics will never accept the existence of psi

Matt Rouge offers a thoughtful guest post on psi and dogmatic (capital-s) Skepticism. Take it away, Matt!

---

(Eric Newhill, who is a frequent commenter here and an actuary and analyst at a large insurance firm, was kind enough to review this post for accuracy on statistical matters. Also, Michael always provides significant guidance on my guest posts. Much thanks to you both!

I had been thinking about writing this post for awhile, and I begin to fight my standard inertia bit more when I saw this article on Slate, dated May 17, 2017: "Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which means science is broken."

Then, in the comments on this blog, Leo MacDonald referred to a related post on NEUROLOGICAblog: "Follow Up on Bem’s Psi Research."

We’ll be talking about these in a moment, but first my thesis:

Skeptics will never be compelled to accept the existence of psi because laboratory research involves difficult statistics that can be argued about ad infinitum, and exceptional individual cases of psi can be dismissed as “anecdotes” one by one.

Let’s look at both of these issues in turn.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2017/06/guest-post-why-skeptics-will-never-accept-the-existence-of-psi.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I read the article and I'm left in an odd position; I don't believe in 'psi' but regarding the crux of his argument I agree 100%. The 'skeptics' he's referring to are the nowaday skeptics aka internet forum people aka morons. Just people who toe the line. There is no science in towing the line but folks think there is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if such things really exist, but in order for me to be swayed I'd have to see someone right 99% of the time. In several experiments. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my angle as well. When tests are performed there are just way too many ways in which a test can be rigged by either the testers, the test subject or both.

Naturally if you have people who want to believe that such a thing exists then there is already an inherent danger of data either being consciously or unconsciously skewed to prove it or having data omitted thus the whole test is dubious.

I do not accept that PSI exists and I will not accept it until a truly unbiased group of researchers can actually study the so-called "phenomenon" as well as the human brain and determine if the human brain can actually do any of the things suggested WITHOUT the use of computers, wire leads, etc to aid in the brain functions.

After all we already can attach wires to someones head then channel and amplify them so they can be used but moving something without the aid of high technology and just using the brain itself...that will be quite an undertaking. Furthermore we need researchers to ask the questions of just how and more importantly WHY a brain would produce enough electro-magnetic energy to affect the outside surroundings and how this would even serve an organism biologically as well as how it would fit into the evolution of a physical creature that can already ambulate and manipulate its own environment via physical means.

Us "horrible" skeptics just want to see unbiased research, not candy-coated fluff that strokes the ego of researchers who don't want reality and rather keep clinging to that which they wish was true.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres different kinds of skeptics. Most skeptics base their criticism on faith, faith that there's some scientific logic to it that they don't understand or know about. So if you're relying on faith as your foundation, then you should ask yourself how is the credibility of your foundation any different than the foundation of believers, belief in God, ghosts, mermaids...etc. So if you tell some PSI story and another guy says it's nonsense, then both of you are basing PSI on something right? So now it's up to who's foundation is more solid, credible? Skeptics rarely provide any credibility. To establish a logical theory, you must present your known facts and how they factor into the discussion.  

Another skeptic would be a professional that has in depth knowledge of any particular science. For PSI, that would require in depth knowledge regarding neurology, psychology and probably particle physics if not quantum physics. So ask the skeptics...are they qualified to evaluate the subject and provide a solid foundation of theories that relies on science and not faith?

Remember, scientific proof 100% has very strict requirements. We may not be able to measure everything using physical instruments or to at least say our technology is not there yet..that much we do know 100% fact. Axioms for example has yet to be discovered by the Hadron Collider. We also don't understand how gravity waves can transmit data but they theorize that we can. Theories is what everyone at this site relies on, yet too many are either firm skeptics or firm believers yet they both rely on faith. ...Aren't people interesting?

So even though these links may establish some solid foundations for theoretical discussion, one could present enough holes to establish doubt so it's not wise to preset yourself to believing it to be true/fact until we can fill the unknowns, same goes for the firm skeptics as well. It's important everything gets questioned but yet not marred with ignorance.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.