It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: BlueMule
Yeah good point. I am not saying I don't believe, I just haven't seen anything that has made me believe in it. I am sure if there is decent evidence to show this is something that is real, even the most skeptical should be able to open their mind to investigate further, I would imagine anyways.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule
I don't like to use the word proof. I don't think it has a place in science. Proof is a very tricky concept.
1proof noun ˈprüf
: something which shows that something else is true or correct
: an act or process of showing that something is true
I don't see what's so tricky about demonstrating the truth.
How are you going to convince a skeptical scientist that before he can replicate a parapsychological experiment, he must become a believer?
You mean, how do you convince a scientist to formulate a conclusion before he has begun to gather the evidence?
It's simple: you don't.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
Then you won't be able to convince a skeptical scientist to account for variables that (the evidence suggests) influence psychic ability. Psychological, physiological, and environmental variables all influence it. Including the psychology of the experimenter.
If a skeptical scientist approaches his parapsychological experiment thinking, "I don't care what the evidence suggests, I'm going to do it my way", then he is just seeing to it that his skepticism is confirmed.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlueMule
Is that kind of like people seeing the weather thousands of years ago and since science couldn't (at the time) explain why tornadoes happen, they chalk it up to god/gods? Because that is all I see with your post.
ETA: The problem is that you are trying to rush science. Science works at its own pace. It does what it can through the limitations of current technology and human thought. You nor I have any idea what the future holds for technology and science. So to say that science is incapable of detecting and measuring psychic abilities is short-sighted in my opinion. I understand that you would like answers to these questions, but if science isn't ready to answer them, there is nothing we can do about it until science can answer them.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Clearly, you are blissfully oblivious of exactly how much math and logic goes into science. I'll give you a hint: a lot. In fact, I would go so far as to say science relies on math and logic. It might be a bit daring of me to say so, but there you are.
If a skeptical scientist approaches his parapsychological experiment thinking, "I don't care what the evidence suggests, I'm going to do it my way", then he is just seeing to it that his skepticism is confirmed.
That's...not how science works. Although I can name one or two agencies who are known for such an approach...
originally posted by: The 5th
''Parapsychology is a branch of science (or pseudo-science..)''
No, Parapsychology is very much an aspect of standard scientific enquiry within normal-science. It isn't a separate aspect of science, nor does it claim to be. This mistake was within the first sentence of this thread.
Not a good start, a clear lack of research and subject knowledge is apparent.
originally posted by: BlueMule
originally posted by: The 5th
''Parapsychology is a branch of science (or pseudo-science..)''
No, Parapsychology is very much an aspect of standard scientific enquiry within normal-science. It isn't a separate aspect of science, nor does it claim to be. This mistake was within the first sentence of this thread.
Not a good start, a clear lack of research and subject knowledge is apparent.
(or pseudo-science, if YOU PREFER)
Sir, many people are adament about labeling parapsychology as pseudo-science. I don't agree with that label, but I'm trying to be accomodating to different preferences because I wanted to avoid the whole issue of labels, for the sake of thread flow.
I hope you see where I'm coming from there, and yes I have been studying the parapsychological literature for years. I have experienced psi many, many times. If you doubt my knowledge of the subject, then quiz me.
Regardless of which label it truly deserves, parapsychological findings are not disseminated. Parapsychology is not invited to the party. It stands outside the gates of science.
www.amazon.com...
Lots of things go into science. Bias, prejudice, science fiction, religion, politics, money, journalism. It doesn't make them science.
Experimenter effects are well established in science. The attitude of experimenters can influence the outcome of an experiment. If psi is real (which it is) then the effects are compounded. Many branches of science could be vulneralbe to experimenter psi effects, not just parapsychology.
There have been numerous experiments that show that the attitude of a skeptical experimenter toward psi skewers the results of psi experiments.
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Here you go old friend.
www.noetic.org...
www.aspr.com...
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Here you go old friend.
www.noetic.org...
www.aspr.com...
And do you have a solution for eliminating psionic influence?
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule
Lots of things go into science. Bias, prejudice, science fiction, religion, politics, money, journalism. It doesn't make them science.
Sure. But those things don't change the facts that true scientific investigation uncovers.
Experimenter effects are well established in science. The attitude of experimenters can influence the outcome of an experiment. If psi is real (which it is) then the effects are compounded. Many branches of science could be vulneralbe to experimenter psi effects, not just parapsychology.
And yet, these methods are still the most reliable available to man. Unless you have an alternative to suggest?
There have been numerous experiments that show that the attitude of a skeptical experimenter toward psi skewers the results of psi experiments.
I'd be delighted to see some sources.
originally posted by: deloprator20000
First, how do you "know" it exists?
Second, if it exists, then that means it has some detectable manifestation in physical reality, which means that it is testable under strict scientific protocol. If it has no detectable manifestation in physical reality then how can you claim it exists? Also, if it exists then how can you claim it will "forever" be outside the realm of science? Forever is a long time, and making claims based on little more than a vague notion of what science is isn't very convincing.
Don't be lazy and do some research yourself... There is an overwhelming body of literature that goes in-depth about this, and this aspect of research and how it may skew results. It is not up to the OP to reduce your level of ignorance with regards to this topic. You should really study before you enter as it just makes you look silly, and in this case, you look rather silly.
originally posted by: BlueMule
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Here you go old friend.
www.noetic.org...
www.aspr.com...
And do you have a solution for eliminating psionic influence?
Well, I have some thoughts about that but I doubt it would work. Too expensive. That's why I think science as we know it is screwed.
The parapsychological evidence suggests that meditation increases psychic strength. If there were enough meditation experts involved in a parapsychological experiment, and if they were trained to work in psychic unison, then perhaps their influence would be enough to overcome the taint of skepticism on experiments.