One of the Problems with Science, as I see it

a reply to: BlueMule

I experience dreams many times over, yet they don't have the stability or repeatability of this reality both you and I share. My dreams may exist in a platonic realm, but they don't seem to have the same type of existence as objects in our realm. Also, I've seen many things in dreams that, as far as I know, have no existence in this realm. Repeatability in subjective consciousness is no proof or disproof of its existence or non-existence in this reality.

The biggest problem is how do you know that you know? How do you know that what you believe you "experience" in ESP isn't simply a by-product of knowledge gained from the senses and reconfigured unconsciously by your brain to make it seem like an "experience"?

Also, here is another critique, I can think or dream of an event or place repeatedly, now it could just happen by mere coincidence that somewhere out there in the vast myriad of cities and people there is a place or person that fits the dream or thought. That doesn't make it ESP, this is equivalent to describing a random card in a deck and then being surprised it exists.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
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.

wow, nice assumptions.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy.

Please now though, stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

a reply to: The 5th

wow, nice assumptions.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy.

Please now though, stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

I'm not embarrassing anyone. By the way, I'm not the topic, so please stop derailing the thread.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I haven't derailed anything, please see my posts which address this topic. If you have nothing productive to add to my replies, then that is on you. I am merely replying back to your response. If that is off-topic, then that insinuates that you are also. By all means, add something of worth.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

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.

Skepticism is very important for humanity and I appreciate it. But the thing is, our attitudes are not trapped in our skulls. Our minds are not trapped in our skulls. They radiate out through our psychic ability, and they influence the world.

Skepticism can easily become pathological. It can become pseudo-skepticism. The level of organized activism against parapsychology has elevated the level of skepticism toward psi from a reasonable level to an unreasonable, pathological level.

"They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."

-Marcello Truzzi

a reply to: BlueMule

Skepticism is very important for humanity and I appreciate it. But the thing is, our attitudes are not trapped in our skulls. Our minds are not trapped in our skulls. They radiate out through our psychic ability, and they influence the world.

I don't think it's something we need to be overly concerned about. Like any unused muscle, most psychic talents are probably flaccid and virtually useless.

Skepticism can easily become pathological. It can become pseudo-skepticism. The level of organized activism against parapsychology has elevated the level of skepticism toward psi from a reasonable level to an unreasonable level.

Then perhaps you should approach the board and demand a fully funded investigation into the mysteries of psi. Because apparently, you know much more about the pitfalls regarding their methods than they ever did.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule


Then perhaps you should approach the board and demand a fully funded investigation into the mysteries of psi. Because apparently, you know much more about the pitfalls regarding their methods than they ever did.

No, that is something to educate yourself with. Within the psychological literature, there are many conflicting accounts and reports and data and analysis, which can support and discredit previous research. In fact, most coherent research points to the studies which are in fact in favour of psi, that is, they have a significant analysis towards psi existing. This is not because of a bias perspective, it is simply due to what the data presents.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, again, please stop.

a reply to: deloprator20000

Sir, try to imagine what it would be like to have so many veridical psychic experiences that it would be impossible to dismiss the reality of psi. I've forgotten more VERIDICAL experiences than most people have in their entire life. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, but until you walk a mile in my shoes you won't phase me.

Try to realize that there is a vast body of scientific evidence out there of which you are unaware.

Try to realize that your unconscious mind is calling the shots. It's not up to you whether you accept psychic functioning or not. It's up to the collective unconscious. That's why I don't blame you for your ignorance. I pity you.

Lets assume that Chakras/Kundalini/Reiki is real. And lets assume that some people have the sensitivity in their bodies to feel the chi flow. Also assume that the third eye have sensors in the middle of the forehead and that a person can feel pressure on those sensors.

You can by measuring the bodies signals/warmth and fields in that case prove what happens physically in the body to know that something different is going on. Just like looking for black holes by noticing the effect on the things around the black holes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So why are you so sure that psychic ability (if it exists) is untestable by science? Scientists were unable to test for quantum physics 100+ years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. If psychic abilities exist, then there should be a scientific test we could perform to test for it. The universe works on rules that once known can be used to predict the results for future events. I see no reason why psychic ability would work any differently. If we currently don't have the tools or knowhow to test for it, then we either need to improve our technology or change the way we test for it. Of course all this is assuming that psychic abilities exist in the first place. You may just be wrong and they don't exist after all. I certainly hope you don't believe people like John Edwards are real psychics.

Psychic abilities to send and receive information exists in all people more or less. It is just hard creating the synchronicity to make it works sometime. I have even been able to get a few mental suggestions to my dad who is a total nonbeliever. Nothing really advance just pushing a lot that It is time for him to ask me if I want coffee. . The whole hearing another ones thought seems to be harder. Get that third eye working and you will notice things you have not before.

a reply to: dlbott

The brain is the most powerful unique biological organ in the universe that we know today. We only use two percent of it.

An old myth.

a reply to: BlueMule

It has been shown that skeptics unconsciously use their own psychic ability to hide psi from themselves. Believers, on the other hand, unconsciously use psi to show psi to themselves. It's called the sheep-goat effect.

I love that experiment. People not believing they are PSI using PSI to fail to much in fact proving that they are PSI.

Could psychic communication be a quantum phenomena? I only ask this because it seems to obey the uncertainty principle in that the closer you come to proving/ disproving it exists then the more obscured it becomes. The very process of trying to observe, or conclusively prove, the psychic process just makes it more elusive.

Further, if the possibility exits of acquiring information through non-psy sources then this could allow psychic abilities to be stronger in that they've got more freedom within which to operate. Of course this only adds weight to the skeptics' claim that it is in actuality a non-psy communication.

Interestingly psychic abilities also seem to correspond with quantum effects -
* non locality (reading minds/ universal consciousness/ remote viewing),
* time discontinuity (premonitions/regressions to previous lives),
* entanglement (effecting close people/ situations whilst separated through time and space)
* tunnelling (consistently producing a highly improbable interaction (sales person?))

I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture

a reply to: BlueMule

You just have to what a nice little way of protecting a belief almost as bad as religion, if ESP exists there has to be a way to prove it why would you not be able to test it, like remote viewing many people on here make claims for that but we have never seen any real proof.

originally posted by: The 5th
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I haven't derailed anything, please see my posts which address this topic. If you have nothing productive to add to my replies, then that is on you. I am merely replying back to your response. If that is off-topic, then that insinuates that you are also. By all means, add something of worth.

Sure! One could argue that skepticism of skepticism is, in itself, pseudo-skepticism. Being skeptical of skepticism is one short step away from a never ending cycle of ignorance. Because at that point, the only thing that will convince you is your desire to be convinced. And that's when skepticism has stopped doing its job.

originally posted by: The 5th

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule


Then perhaps you should approach the board and demand a fully funded investigation into the mysteries of psi. Because apparently, you know much more about the pitfalls regarding their methods than they ever did.

No, that is something to educate yourself with. Within the psychological literature, there are many conflicting accounts and reports and data and analysis, which can support and discredit previous research. In fact, most coherent research points to the studies which are in fact in favour of psi, that is, they have a significant analysis towards psi existing. This is not because of a bias perspective, it is simply due to what the data presents.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, again, please stop.

And your conspicuous lack of professional research has me thinking you are full of crap. Instead of asking me to stop, take a step back and check your privilege.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Skepticism toward new claims helps guard science against error. But a failure to maintain a certain level of skepticism after a claim has been accepted can foster dogmatism.

Ideally, skepticism is a double-edged sword.

People are skeptical toward psi. That is one edge.

But people are failing to maintain a certain level of skepticism toward the part of science that says, "psi is bollocks". So the sword has only one edge, and dogmatism creeps into science.

Skepticism with only one edge, one direction, is pseudo-skepticism. Pathological skepticism. Dogmatism.

Or worse.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Skepticism toward new claims helps guard science against error. But a failure to maintain a certain level of skepticism after a claim has been accepted can foster dogmatism.

Ideally, skepticism is a double-edged sword.

People are skeptical toward psi. That is one edge.

But people are failing to maintain a certain level of skepticism toward the part of science that says, "psi is bollocks". So the sword has only one edge, and dogmatism creeps into science.

Skepticism with only one edge, one direction, is pseudo-skepticism. Pathological skepticism. Dogmatism.

Or worse.

Similar to people failing to maintain a certain level of skepticism toward the part of science that says, "God is bollocks". Am I in the ballpark?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

Similar to people failing to maintain a certain level of skepticism toward the part of science that says, "God is bollocks". Am I in the ballpark?

Maybe. But that begs the question, whose God? Whose concept of God? There are many. Who is qualified to decide?

Whereas, the question 'whose psi' is not begged, because psi is a universal, cross-cultural, ancient human experience. Psi can be categorized and detected in a lab.

a reply to: BlueMule

Maybe. But that begs the question, whose God? Whose concept of God? There are many. Who is qualified to decide?

Whereas, the question 'whose psi' is not begged, because psi is a universal, cross-cultural, ancient human experience. Psi can be categorized and detected in a lab.

Well, we don't have a better science. So I guess that's just one of the problems we have to deal with.