One of the Problems with Science, as I see it

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.

I hear you. But people can become emotionally and finantially invested in their skepticism. Just like they do with religion.

Parapsychology is the only branch of science that I know of that has organized resistance opposing it at every turn, and sometimes the resistance fights dirty. There are skeptics who make their living opposing it. There are motivated, organized skeptics, who have already made up their mind, who stand between parapsychology and the public, like a filter.

That's why you are unaware of the overwhelming evidence supporting psi.

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.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

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.

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.

a reply to: BlueMule

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

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.

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 it is real, science will be able to measure it eventually. We just have to discover the science first.

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: 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.

My friend, science can already detect and measure psychic ability.

It doesn't matter.

The rules of science say so.

If you detect something, before it becomes accepted by science it must be replicated. People who are skeptical of your detection must be able to detect it for themselves. But what if the very mind of the skeptic forbids it?

You said it yourself, science is limited by human thought.

Ah... The bliss of mindless oblivion; I wish that I could languish there in luxury. Of course you are right, BH. Furthermore I would say that math and logic are in fact science.

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.

Lots of things go into science. Bias, prejudice, science fiction, religion, politics, money, journalism. It doesn't make them science.

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...

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.

''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: 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...

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...

Yes, reading back my reply was quite harsh, well not particularly harsh, but cutting. The intention in your thread was well and good. Apologies, good sir.

I guess my gripe with this subject at large is the way it is perceived and responded too within Academia, let a lone general public thought. An incredibly hard time is given to this subject of enquiry for little reason apart from in research areas which are often 'looked over' or do not fit a known 'theory', or are presumed to be flawed or 'out there'. What a load of tosh.

It is often remarked how this area lacks in research but even a thorough look into the Ganzfeld research, a small aspect within this area, and also it's methodology, suggests, even at a base level this field has much to uncover.

Again apologies for a rash response,

The 5th

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.

a reply to: The 5th

Apology gladly accepted!



I share your gripe!

I don't think things will get better. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I believe there is a mechanism, or a reflex, in the collective psyche which will always keep psi marginalized. As long as psi is marginalized, science will not be able to grasp reality, because psi is a fundamental part of it.

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Here you go old friend.

www.noetic.org...
www.aspr.com...

.. messed up the multi quote like a right newbie, please can someone delete this post.

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

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.

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.

Those things don't change the facts that true scientific investigation uncovers. Sure it does, it distorts the way research is conducted, understood, interpreted and published. Quite large factors when considering the importance of specific information.

These methods can be extremely unreliable. Take the case of the Ganzfeld experiments which I mentioned earlier. These 'critiques', and that is all they are 'critiques' which act as a counterpoint, are flawed by the science in general. They exclude the results within certain data sets and incorporate pilot studies to validate their stand point that they are not accurate. Then, considering how proponents within Psychology, acknowledge how interpretation and how studies are perceived, may influence the results through experimenter bias, amongst other factors which may skew the result. All of a sudden there is a very bias agenda to discount and discredit the results which go against the grain. Specially considering how it is almost impossible to measure a process of an unobservable process, interlinked with consciousness. A grey area in general.

It appears that this scientific reductionism is a limiting and narrow point of view. For example, any paranormal phenomenon which is not yet quantifiable, or not yet able to be measured, is limited by the constraints of instrumentalism as pointed out by Mach. Therefore, if a phenomenon r belief, aren’t able to be measured under the same apparent means, as we do with other objectifiable phenomena, it will not fit and meet the criteria of the current accepted ‘scientific model’. Furthermore, if any paranormal phenomena, in question are indeed immeasurable, up to the point in which we are defined by our abilities to measure, we have no knowledge, at least able to demonstrate, if any phenomenon in question has adverse cognitive effects on the individual. It could, essentially be that when phenomena is experienced, it results in limited cognition or creates deficits.

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.

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.

Reductionism has proven to be the most powerful and effective method by which to study science. The computer you use to view this message was built using reductionist scientific techniques, treatments for certain illnesses were developed using reductionist techniques, your car was built and tested using reductionist methods. Though philosophically speaking, simply because a technique is useful and yields results is not a valid justification for its use, reductionism has proven to be far more effective in understanding the natural world than any other philosophy.

Some may say that reductionism is narrow in scope, but what it lacks in scope it makes up for in focus, reductionism allows researchers to focus on one tiny part of a problem, thereby allowing our limited mental faculties to focus on just one part of the problem, which then leads to incremental progress.

originally posted by: deloprator20000
First, how do you "know" it exists?

Imagine a scenario in which someone experiences something many times over, and then afterword "knows" that it exists. That shouldn't be difficult.

Then imagine they discover a very large body of scientific evidence, which the public is largely unaware of, which has accumulated for over a century, and which supports that knowing.

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.

I believe I've gone over that already in this thread.

a reply to: The 5th

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.

You're right, it isn't. It's up to the scientists whose experience and credibility I do trust, unlike armchair experts on a conspiracy forum.

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.

I can't help but feel as though the point of removing skepticism is purely to suspend disbelief - that is to say, encourage gullibility in the investigator.