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 -
sees

8 Paranormal Scientific Studies

38 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

sees

If you google “parapsychology,” the first thing that will probably pop up is a Wikipedia entry loosely (and, in my opinion, rather offensively) defining it as a “pseudoscience.” This is unfortunate, because it distracts the reader from realizing that psychical research, also known as ‘psi’ (or parapsychology), is practiced by various scientists and reputable institutions all over the world.....(read on further e.g. a positive quote from Carl Sagan on reincarnation!)

 http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/22/the-top-8-paranormal-scientific-studies-what-we-can-learn-from-them/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Yeah I read through that out of context link. It's woo to the second power.

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/classes/ph125a/istmt.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9904042.pdf

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)07100-8/abstract?cc=y=

http://mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html (institute for afterlife research) are you kidding me?

http://www.noetic.org/research/projects/compassionate-intention-prayer

These are most of the links I could pull up that didn't link back to the site itself. Plus I don't know how the consensus feels about Dean Radin.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, sees said:

If you google “parapsychology,” the first thing that will probably pop up is a Wikipedia entry loosely (and, in my opinion, rather offensively) defining it as a “pseudoscience.”

Did you know Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics     So the articles have a ridiculously biased tone. Wikipedia should be balanced but it is hard to police. This group hides nothing of their intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
1 hour ago, sees said:

If you google “parapsychology,” the first thing that will probably pop up is a Wikipedia entry loosely (and, in my opinion, rather offensively) defining it as a “pseudoscience.”

@sees - I realise that you are 'right into' all this paranormal stuff.

But doesn't 'parapsychology' generally come under the banner as being a 'pseudoscience' ? 

I'm not 100 percent sure....but even after a century or more of research and investigation into parapsychology....there has still not been any true and convincing data / validity put forth (that I'm aware of anyway) that psychic phenomena truly exists.

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sees
9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Did you know Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics     So the articles have a ridiculously biased tone. Wikipedia should be balanced but it is hard to police. This group hides nothing of their intent.

Ah yes - that figures!   wink.gif Thanks for that. icon_thumleft.gif

Feels like a lot of them are here on this forum!  duel.gif?v=2hides.gif?v=2   

I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature....

brings to mind the phrase "you can't handle the truth!"  icon_lol.gif  

Edited by sees
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, sees said:

Ah yes - that figures!   wink.gif Thanks for that. icon_thumleft.gif

I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature....

brings to mind the phrase "you can't handle the truth!"  icon_lol.gif  

Do you actually believe that or are you making assumptions again? 

If we had something more than poorly done testing then it would be a lot easier. Not include the sheer level of fraud involved in all those studies. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Butler
20 minutes ago, sees said:

Ah yes - that figures!   wink.gif Thanks for that. icon_thumleft.gif

Feels like a lot of them are here on this forum!  duel.gif?v=2hides.gif?v=2   

I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature....

brings to mind the phrase "you can't handle the truth!"  icon_lol.gif  

Did you read the Guerilla Skeptics link?  They're a small group who target books.  I'm not seeing the connection that you're implying. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 hours ago, The Butler said:

Did you read the Guerilla Skeptics link?  They're a small group who target books.  I'm not seeing the connection that you're implying. 

This is the top banner of their link

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This is the top banner of their link

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us.

Note how they edit articles relating to prominent skeptics and skeptic organizations, as well removing unsourced claims. They don't vandalize pages about topics usually considered pseudoscience.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sees
3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Note how they edit articles relating to prominent skeptics and skeptic organizations, as well removing unsourced claims. They don't vandalize pages about topics usually considered pseudoscience.

By 'vandalize' you mean they don't outright destroy the topic?  As opposed to altering its content with their bias?  Question of degree?

Edited by sees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Carnoferox said:

Note how they edit articles relating to prominent skeptics and skeptic organizations, as well removing unsourced claims. They don't vandalize pages about topics usually considered pseudoscience.

Yes, they do. I have seen parapsychologist and related issues pages before and after. They removed what sounded like positive evidence and increased the 'Criticisms' page.

 

In the opening comments from their website I provided to you, they refer to it as: providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
1 minute ago, sees said:

By 'vandalize' you mean destroy?  As opposed to changing the context with their bias?  Question of degree?

Articles like parapsychology and cryptozoology have always been labeled as pseudoscience, with or without the Guerilla Skeptics. Is calling something a "pseudoscience" biased? No. It's not like they have belittled or downgraded the subject, only categorized it properly. These subjects do fall under the criteria.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes, they do. I have seen parapsychologist and related issues pages before and after. They removed what sounded like positive evidence and increased the 'Criticisms' page.

 

In the opening comments from their website I provided to you, they refer to it as: providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages

Removing unsourced citations is not the same as removing positive evidence. Removing unsourced citations happens all over on Wikipedia, not just on parapsychology articles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sees
1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

Articles like parapsychology and cryptozoology have always been labeled as pseudoscience, with or without the Guerilla Skeptics. Is calling something a "pseudoscience" biased? No. It's not like they have belittled or downgraded the subject, only categorized it properly. These subjects do fall under the criteria.

Yes the word 'pseudo' is decidedly derogatory!  It means not genuine, sham....which is absolutely shameful!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
2 minutes ago, sees said:

Yes the word 'pseudo' is decidedly derogatory!  It means not genuine, sham....which is absolutely shameful!!

The prefix "pseudo' means "appearing like something else", not necessarily derogatory.  What would you prefer it to be called? These topics do not fall under the criteria for science. Parascience (meaning "like science")?

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sees

For those who still regard themselves as having an open mind towards the paranormal i.e. not totally biased/dismissive of it (but who still favour science), you may like to read this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Materialism-Evidence-Paranormal-Bringing/dp/1572246456

Edited by sees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Removing unsourced citations is not the same as removing positive evidence. Removing unsourced citations happens all over on Wikipedia, not just on parapsychology articles.

We would agree people have different opinions on 'sources' and 'unsourced, etc. and I think we can see what is going on with Guerilla Skeptics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 minutes ago, sees said:

For those who still regard themselves as having an open mind towards the paranormal i.e. not totally biased/dismissive of it (but who still favour science), you may like to read this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Materialism-Evidence-Paranormal-Bringing/dp/1572246456

I might check that out. I still do having a passing interest.

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

We would agree people have different opinions on 'sources' and 'unsourced, etc. and I think we can see what is going on with Guerilla Skeptics.

No, on Wikipedia there is a clear definition of sourced and unsourced. On Wikipedia, there is a reference section for citations. If a sentence or paragraph does not having a citation in the reference section, then it is unsourced. This should be accepted by all editors on Wikipedia, regardless of their personal bias.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
5 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

The prefix "pseudo' means "appearing like something else", not necessarily derogatory.  What would you prefer it to be called? These topics do not fall under the criteria for science. Parascience (meaning "like science")?

I'm of like mind with you on this one. I use pseudo to mean almost, or approaching it, or appearing like it... but not actually it.

Like alchemy. I term it as a pseudoscience. Some of it's structure and tenants are almost scientific in their approach, but not quite making it. However, out of the pseudoscience of alchemy came chemistry. The distillation of actual science.

I don't think para is as applicable as it might be otherwise. Mostly because we pair it with normal- paranormal- to mean abnormal or outside normal. Pseudosciences cover paranormal things. I think there would likely be a bit of confusion if it were both parascience and paranormal.

I think pseudoscience is a good thing. There's evidently things going on that haven't been explained yet. I do rather wish that some of those pseudosciences would start distilling better down into more actual science. But I guess give it time, and it will tell one way or the other. I know it's not in the OP, but since it is under the ghosts section.. I think that out of the pseudoscience of ghost investigating some true science could distill out. If more folks could figure out how to apply scientific methods to their pseudoscience to help it along.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
1 hour ago, rashore said:

I don't think para is as applicable as it might be otherwise. Mostly because we pair it with normal- paranormal- to mean abnormal or outside normal. Pseudosciences cover paranormal things. I think there would likely be a bit of confusion if it were both parascience and paranormal.

The prefix "para-" can be misleading, because it can be used to mean either "outside of or beyond" or "similar but not the same".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
Just now, Carnoferox said:

The prefix "para-" can be misleading, because it can be used to mean either "outside of or beyond" or "similar but not the same".

I know, and that's what makes me think that since we already pair para with normal to mean "outside or beyond" more than "similar but not the same".. and use pseudo more often to mean "similar but not the same" more than "outside or beyond"... that switching that around now would only lead to more confusion than there already is on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
21 minutes ago, rashore said:

I know, and that's what makes me think that since we already pair para with normal to mean "outside or beyond" more than "similar but not the same".. and use pseudo more often to mean "similar but not the same" more than "outside or beyond"... that switching that around now would only lead to more confusion than there already is on the subject.

I was not seriously suggesting "parascience" as a replacement, but rather to highlight to sees that pseudoscience is not derogatory and is the best possible term.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
7 hours ago, sees said:

Yes the word 'pseudo' is decidedly derogatory!  It means not genuine, sham....which is absolutely shameful!!

It is accurately applied in these cases.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SSilhouette
On 1/5/2017 at 4:44 PM, papageorge1 said:

Did you know Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics     So the articles have a ridiculously biased tone. Wikipedia should be balanced but it is hard to police. This group hides nothing of their intent.

Here's a quote from their page:

If you would like to join our project, we would love to have you. Open up a Wikipedia account, friend me on Facebook so I can add you to the Secret Cabal and write to me at GSoWteam@gmail.com 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
17 hours ago, sees said:

I guess some people feel too threatened/scared by anything not of a materialistic, tangible nature....

No - some people feel threatened/scared to take off their blinkers and face reality....it's called denial.

I think as science replaces the supernatural 'with the natural' by explaining everything from thunder and lightning to the formation of planets - etc....well, sadly many people are still seeking another source of mystery and wonder in the world. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.