Printable View
I was.
What makes me sad though is seeing the ones on tv or radio, who are actually on the side I would think is right and true. But they are letting the more intelligent guy walk right over him! There is so many points the other guy can make here and there. And he doesn't. And the side I think is false ends up presenting a better case.
sorry for :hijack: lol
Well I have only given this thread a brief look-over, but I must say I disaggree with the notion that all scepticism is just holding narrow-minded beliefs that all science there is to know has already been learnt. This stereotyping of scepticism is the same as stereotyping anyone that believes in paranormal or metaphysical occurances as barefooted hippies with nose rings that have a collection of mystical gems and stones etc etc.
I myself will not believe in something unless it is proven by science. That doesn't mean I won't accept anything that goes against current scientific ideas and beliefs, it means I won't accept it until it has been proven scientifically, ie by proving a testable hypothesis. I am not, however, closed to the idea of things that haven't as yet been thoroughly tested etc, I just won't claim to 'believe' in them. The notion that science needs to 'grow up' or become more open-minded is a bit strange, because there is nothing wrong with science - things that are viewed as impossible by the scientific community can be proven correct using science itself, and it happens all the time.
One thing I have noticed with the ongoing debate about metaphysics etc is the ongoing stimatisation of each side. Depending on whose side you're on, either those that believe in the paranormal are a bunch of weed-smoking hippies, or the scientific community is full of stuffy professors that refuse to accept anything that goes against their idea of science. I think that the only way forward with such arguments, as with nearly all arguments is to take a centrist view and look at things with an open mind, but never accepting them until they have been proven by scientific method.
I'm not sure who's notion that was. Mine is that pseudoskepticism, (close-minded, dogmatic clingyness to old, familiar pardigms, while disguising it as "objective doubt") is unwarranted, in light of evidence (or potential evidence) that Has been attained scientifically.Quote:
Originally posted by Roller
Well I have only given this thread a brief look-over, but I must say I disaggree with the notion that all scepticism is just holding narrow-minded beliefs that all science there is to know has already been learnt. This stereotyping of scepticism is the same as stereotyping anyone that believes in paranormal or metaphysical occurances as barefooted hippies with nose rings that have a collection of mystical gems and stones etc etc.
Being skeptical of many things paranormal, myself, I would have no reason to criticize All skeptics.
Now, by saying that you only believe things that have been proven scientifically, are you meaning in the True notion of being proven somewhere scientifically, or something that has passed the head suits in charge of mainstream scientific reasearch and publishing?
If you ask me, there is a difference.
Many things that "skeptics" (note the quotations) denounce because they haven't been "proven scientifically" have been tested and given at least Some Credibility. But if these results are supressed from the public eye because of their taboo nature and bizarre implications, how do you know what has been proven scientifically or not?
ofcourse the skeptics are always wrong in the end. That's whats so funny about it.
when something is finally proven right. The skeptics are somewhat shamed. But they then adopt this new fact, as if it were their own from the start. When it is again challenged. They are shamed yet again! poor dinosaurs will never get with the times......
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."Quote:
Originally posted by Boris
ofcourse the skeptics are always wrong in the end. That's whats so funny about it. when something is finally proven right. The skeptics are somewhat shamed. But they then adopt this new fact, as if it were their own from the start. When it is again challenged. They are shamed yet again! poor dinosaurs will never get with the times......
--Arthur Shopenhauer
However, all that is proposed is not truth, and it is in fact the gullible, not the skeptical, who are shamed. Skepticism is doubt; it is not automatic disbelief. Before you decide to believe a new idea simply because it is new and you do not wish to appear a "dinosaur," remember this: it is far easier to come up with a wrong idea than a correct one.
Exactly. Yes, there were many things that were ridiculed and laughed at when they were first proposed (the idea that the earth was round is usually wheeled forth as an example here). Yes, many people thought the idea was proposturous and stuck with their pre-determined ideas, but that does not mean that every new claim or idea is true and that 'it just needs to be accepted by science'. Sometimes the basics of the idea might be correct, but the wrong reasoning applied. An example is when monks discovered how to turn wine into vinegar - they would pour the wine from bottle to bottle all the while performing sacred rituals etc to entice holy spirits to make the vinegar. What they didn't realise was that it was simply the exposure to the air that did it, not the chanting and carrying on.Quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus
However, all that is proposed is not truth, and it is in fact the gullible, not the skeptical, who are shamed. Skepticism is doubt; it is not automatic disbelief. Before you decide to believe a new idea simply because it is new and you do not wish to appear a "dinosaur," remember this: it is far easier to come up with a wrong idea than a correct one.
I'm not trying to say that people should disregard all new ideas and claims - far from it - but that simply because some things that have been ridiculed in the past have since been accepted as scientific fact does not mean that every new idea 'just has to be accepted'.
I see what you're saying here - that a lot of scientific magazines and groups are reluctant to publish valid research into such phenonomen because of the stigmatised view of such things and the notion that it's all pseudoscience. I think that gradually these views are changing and more journals are willing to publish these things, but it takes time I gues.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
something that has passed the head suits in charge of mainstream scientific reasearch and publishing?
I agree. I love to find all of the stories of "out of the box" minds that actually look into things in spite of the ridicule they may receive from their colleagues. I don't think that any great mind should be a lemming that follows their bretheren to the ends of the earth. The more revolutionary scientists that dare to ask and test the really outlandish questions, the harder it will be for dogmatic scientists to keep their vice-grip on the knowledge that the rest of the world perceives.Quote:
Originally posted by Roller
I think that gradually these views are changing and more journals are willing to publish these things, but it takes time I gues.
Also...I heard a rumor a while ago and I'm having trouble finding whether it is true or false. Apparently there is very little knowledge of the subject and I know there are some pretty smart and resourceful people here Sooo....
A cookie goes to whoever can help me mind out what science knows about how moray eels communicate! :cookiemonster:
Googling with I'm Feeling Lucky and '"moray communication" information' is about the best I could find.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
A cookie goes to whoever can help me mind out what science knows about how moray eels communicate! *:cookiemonster:
Then again perhaps you've seen that already.
If not, you can keep your stinking cookie :P
LOL @ this being the link the "Feeling Lucky" gave
http://news.povray.org/moray.win/thread/%3....povray.org%3E/
Nope. :tongue: No cookie fo' you!! And don't act like you're not heartbroken!!!
GIve me that damn cookie already, it does work!
You have to type exactly this:
With the quote marks as presented aboveQuote:
"moray communication" information[/b]
*grumblewheresmycookiegrumble*
Oh, ok. I didn't know the word "information" was a part of your search. I see the site that you pulled up, now.
But no cookies shall be distruuted until I find out that it has the info I'm looking for! :evil:
Intriguing little essay:
The Human Energy Field:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.43.html
The Human Energy Field in Relation to Science Consciousness and Health
http://www.vxm.com/21R.54.html
Hmm...
Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC
http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/dc_md.html
The New Discovery in Chiropractic:
For Chiropractors as directed from Dynamic Chiropractic and The Chiropractic Journal:
http://www.testandresponse.com/tnrhistory.htm
Excerpt:
"Two groups of living cells were sealed within separate vessels and also separated by a layer of quartz glass so that there was absolutely no possibility of physical contact with each other; one group was injected with a "disease." The other group without any physical contact whatsoever readily developed the same condition. Fellow scientists declared that this was impossible. Then numerable tests were made and the impossible happened numerable times.
Fantastic indeed, this experiment, which provided those scientists with the great discovery that living cells, can transmit by some sort of radiation their condition to other living cells.
It is well to observe that a perception capacity exists as well as a radiation capacity with living cells, else this experiment could not have produced such results. In addition it is theorized that all matter radiates a pattern of its own identity. In the Test & Response bioelectrical testing we have been able to utilize this perception capacity of living cells of the human body, not only to respond to other living cells but also to respond to, and to interpret the radiating pattern of any organic or inorganic substance of the environment."
The veil thins:
Ok check it out. Throughout this thread there are scores and scores of “evidence” that, at least, SHOULD be considered before passing judgment on whether a phenomenon exists or not. However (as professor Wolpert so proudly proclaimed in the debate posted earlier) many “credible scientists” (inferring that ‘anyone with a brain Should’) get their information on scientific community goings-ons from “Distinguished scientific journals” only. Anything less, worldwide, when dealing with the realm of science, is inadequate.
Brought into question now is one of those journals and the type of deadbolt testing that must be done before something is published in a ‘distinguished journal.’
If you’ve read half of the crap on this thread, you have somewhat of an understanding on how vigorous these tests have to be to even be accredited to having the possibility of a metaphysical nature. They are tested, retested, double-blind, triple-blind, placebo variant gauntlets that, when left with a ‘mysterious’ outcome are either retested again or simply cancelled out do to a hypothetical “dirty test tube” accusation of compromised testing. Whatever the case, through decades of this “vigorous testing” most mainstream “intellects” will tell you that there is No documented evidence whatsoever of any metaphysical phenomenon published in one of these journals.
We brought up the credibility of the debunking of Robert Sheldrake’s dog test earlier.
Now let’s look at this one.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/01/therapeutic.touch/
which, in turn, spawns articles like this:
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/juniorSkeptic.htm
Does anyone not see the hypocrisy in this?
Seriously…anyone?
I think I've reached the point where I try not to judge that stuff. It is arrogant to say it is definetly true... but science judges things that we are able to percieve or measure in some way. We can't do that with paranormal things, so there is no point saying it is false or true I guess. Like science shouldn't mess with religion, because it can't do anything with it...
That's not entirely true. Science can test the existence of many paranormal events/abilities, etc. If those events or abilities have a measurable, perceivable effect, they can be studied by science. It's been tried before - there have been studies to test telepathy, psychokinesis, remote viewing, precog, etc. One of the main problems is with the subjectivity of the proposed mental abilities. What counts as a "hit"? If someone is supposed to be looking at a picture of a forest and describes "a scene filled with green," does that count as a hit? Surely a forest is green, but so is just about anything else outdoors and not in the dead of winter as well as a myriad of other man-made green constructs. There's no one accepted methodology (at least as far as I know), so studies are not necessarily comparable. Of course, this may well be the case in psychological research in general, especially within emerging areas of inquiry. It's not necessarily that science can't study these things (so long as they produce a perceivable, measurable effect), but rather that the interest does not exist. It's a subject considered too controversial to risk one's career by studying. While a large percentage of the general population believes in such thing, only a much smaller percentage of the scientific community does. Most are either undecided, apathetic, ambivalent, or think it's all just wishful thinking combined with selective memory and coincidence.Quote:
Originally posted by ataraxis
It is arrogant to say it is definetly true... but science judges things that we are able to percieve or measure in some way. *We can't do that with paranormal things, so there is no point saying it is false or true I guess.
The current dominant scientific paradigm does not support the existence of such phenomena, and for this reason, little research is done, and that research which is done tends to face resistance within the community. One reason for this could be the unseemly number of respected scientists who were taken in and hoaxed during the age of spiritualism in the 1800's. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... well, scientists don't want to get fooled again. Once was embarrassing enough. Also, our current understanding of the physical world does not include a mechanism through which these proposed phenomena could occur, and in the absence of rigorous and wide-spread ongoing research, there is very little besides personal and anecdotal evidence by which to draw conclusions.
So all of that is to say: Yes, science could study most proposed paranormal phenomena, but no, right now it isn't. Of course, history bears out the fact that if it is possible for science to study a phenomenon, it will get to the truth of the matter eventually. But, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, when there is resistance, it takes quite an accumulation of anomalous data before a paradigm shift occurs. However, make no mistake: the fact that science does not support the existence of paranormal phenomena is not indicative of some vast conspiracy or cover-up. It does not mean that those paranormal phenomena exist. People want to believe that such things are possible - that they can communicate mind-to-mind, that they can affect the physical world by will alone, etc - and when someone wants to believe that a thing is real, they are that much more susceptible to fraud.
What do you want to believe? That it's real or that it's not? Whichever you desire to be true is the one towards which you should be most skeptical and critical. The mind has a convenient way of dismissing that which runs counter to its desires.
Good post, thanks for the insight...
I understand the first part of your post... but I was more trying to say that science doesn't really have "instruments" to study this stuff. Some stuff... like for example, electricity. You can measure electrical charge. Science can run experiments on people who say they have paranormal abilities, but with our current technology we can't "measure" it. A person can't see the "level of psychic energy" (or however it would be judged) is being outputted from a person when trying to do something paranormal. But sure, science can judge it based on experiments.
Also... though I tend not to believe in it, I would definetly LIKE it to be true. Who wouldn't want t o be able to float objects with your mind or shoot fireballs from your hand? :P
Ah, I see what you mean. I think "psychic energy" or whatever would probably be considered part of the mechanism rather than the effect. And yeah, if that's not physically detectable, studying it directly would be scientifically impossible.
Here here! But at least I can do all of that and more in my dreams :DQuote:
Originally posted by ataraxis
Also... though I tend not to believe in it, I would definetly LIKE it to be true. *Who wouldn't want t o be able to float objects with your mind or shoot fireballs from your hand? :P
Words to live by. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus
What do you want to believe? That it's real or that it's not? Whichever you desire to be true is the one towards which you should be most skeptical and critical. The mind has a convenient way of dismissing that which runs counter to its desires.
Though a little presumptuous, I found this interesting.
The Sovereignty of Science: Scientific Belief is Obedience to Authority
The author is correct that there is a predominant culture within science which takes the non-existence of psychic phenomena as a foregone conclusion; however, he considerably overestimates the effect that "proof" and acceptance of such phenomena would have on the world. It wouldn't upend socio-economic stratification. Corporations (the primary power-holders in both the developed and developing world) would immediately being research to develop applications. Governments would embrace the technology developed by global and local corporations and would begin research campaigns of their own which emphasize military and security applications. The power would remain with those who have it now because they have the resources to expand into new markets. It would likely have profound philosophic ramifications, but there is no guarantee that such would carry over into social change.
As for the supremacy of science in the western, industrialized world: most people fall into one of two categories. Either they believe science is the infallible, be-all-end-all purveyor of truth, or they believe that science is the enemy of God. Both viewpoints are borne of ignorance. Science, like any progressive, human pursuit, has flaws and limitations. However, through its systematic examination of empirical reality, it seeks an objectivity heretofore unseen in human endeavors. The methods of science restrict the biases which creep into any human activity, but they do not eliminate them completely. Only through education into the methods, history, and current pursuits of science can this be understood by the masses.
Also, all of the evidence cited for psi that I have seen has either been anecdotal (and therefore highly prone to psychological biases and misattributions) or of an extremely small magnitude. Being of a small magnitude in no way makes it less significant from a statistical perspective. However, psychologically, it matters. If research came out claiming that people can levitate cars like Luke Skywalker can levitate a Tie Fighter, you’d get more interest than when a study comes out stating that over a million trials, an RNG deviated by 0.01 percent based on the intentions of human operators. It doesn’t matter that, if that RNG experiment were accurate, it would indicate a highly statistically significant effect – it’s just not very exciting.
Although the implications of such a study would be astounding, it’s hard to get people to care about a 0.01% deviation (I’m just making these numbers up, btw, not referencing any specific study). Even trained scientists who understand the statistics involved would be sorely tempted to dismiss the findings because of the small magnitudes and therefore large opportunities for flawed data involved - the smaller the magnitude of the effect, the smaller the flaw necessary to confound the data. When you have small flaws in an experiment claiming small-magnitude effects (and flaws can be found in almost any experiment – the only question is whether those flaws affected the experimental outcome), it's easy to dismiss that study, especially if it's on a disputed subject and especially if one is already of the belief that the phenomena being studied are wishy-washy poppycock.
Anyway, all that’s to say that no, the scientific dismissal of research into psychic phenomena may not be scientifically justified (I haven’t read the original studies and their corresponding peer reviews in order to compare them and come to an informed personal conclusion), but it’s probably going to take several highly publicized studies claiming confirmation of the existence of the phenomena to open that field up to serious, prolonged, and extensive research. Of course, when the scrutinizing eye is turned upon a subject as controversial as psychic phenomena, the rebuttal will almost undoubtedly be a study denying the existence of said phenomena. Like those two studies on the effects of prayer on heart patients - one claiming a positive effect, the other claiming that no such effect exists – it will be a back-and-forth ping-pong match between “Is Real” and “Not Real”. One can only hope that when the game is over and the points are counted, there is a clear winner. I’d certainly tune in for that battle.
And Oneironaut, how the hell do you manage to keep your posts short and still get your point across? I thought this was going to be two, maybe three quick paragraphs, but no, it's about 700 freakin' words. :doh: And I probably haven't said anything here that I haven't already said elsewhere...
Haha. Call it a gift. What can I say? :wink:Quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus
And Oneironaut, how the hell do you manage to keep your posts short and still get your point across?
You know, I’d been thinking about the whole “0.01% significance” thing for a while now and I’m glad you brought it up, because it's absolutely true.
However, and this is just a wild speculation, but let’s assume that metaphysical things such as psi do actually exist and, as far as now, remain outside of our scope of perception. Think about it like consciousness, or even the ambiguous nature of the origin of talent. Something natural. Something that can be developed just like any other behavioral aspect or skill. Something with Direct ties to the human subconscious. Think about it more psychologically than physically.
Now, with that in mind, think about how hard it might actually be (assuming all of this was reality) for us to develop beyond that “0.01% significance,” with the sporadic, hush-hush, practically occult nature of the research and testing that is going on.
Great athletes are grown, whether purposefully or coincidentally. They aren’t made overnight, and they are grown because it is within the realm of known possibility to Become a great athlete. It has been for millennia. Such is the way, in varying degrees, with great artists, spiritual leaders, martial artists, musicians, comedians, novelists, etc. etc.
The difference would be that these are all skills and traits that have been around for eons. They have been observed, studied and verified to be real over the course of human history. If we are on the threshold of discovering the more metaphysical phenomena like psi, (which would explain many current paradigms, but again, only when assuming this is all real, for the sake of argument) then this would be a new, perceptual beginning for a fundamental human trait; one that (were it true that we’ve had the trait all along, which would explain what some say about ancient nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes that had a sort of “supernatural navigational sense”) has been completely devolved over centuries of disuse, and could take a century more for widespread reactivation and development.
Could it be said, then, that that “0.01 Significance” is not something to be ignored, but reflected upon? Perhaps invoking principles such as Ockham’s Razor (which is a widespread scientific parameter, no?) sometimes, inadvertently have an opposite effect on discovering, what could be, a learnable discipline.
I've just started into a book called The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind, by Rupert Sheldrake. He continues to do extensive research on what he refers to as the "seventh sense." His premise is simply that the mind is not the brain, and the sphere of influence of the mind is much broader than our physical senses. I know the truth of it from experience.
Sheldrake got into this by studying dogs who knew when their masters were coming home. He uses scientific method to conduct his research, and invites others to participate:
http://www.sheldrake.org/
Oneironaut,
That's a good point. I don't see why expectations wouldn't affect any and all human activities in which psychological state is an active variable in performance, psychic phenomena (if they exist) included. If a child has been told that he or she is terrible at basketball, has no natural talent, and will always be picked last for the team, that's likely what will happen. With no confidence, no way to get into the zone and flow which all great athletes describe, the child will fail. The same is true of a child's abilities in math, reading, and any number of other academic subjects. In the absence of external influences, a person's expectations will almost always be fulfilled, regardless of to what those expectations pertain.
However, just any good coach builds his or her team from the strongest, most talented and well-trained athletes, a researcher seeking evidence for psychic functioning should likewise build his or her subject pool from those with the most psychic talent (assuming that psi exists and that, like athletics, lucid dreaming, and any number of other human endeavors, its functioning depends at least in part on a component of natural talent). Those researchers are not trying to demonstrate the strength of the effect in the general population - they're trying to demonstrate its existence and how strong the effect can be.
Although belief is psychic phenomena is waning in western cultures (which, if the effect is real, could explain its weakness observed in experiments conducted on western subjects), there are plenty of other religious and tribal traditions (especially those with a strong shamanic component) which claim not only belief in psi functioning, but who regularly practice it. Why not use those people as subjects, if they are willing? They claim to be able to daily perform scientific anomalies, so if the strength of psychic effects depends upon the psychological acceptance of its practitioners, wouldn't they be the most logical choice of subjects?
Perhaps cross-cultural comparisons of psi effects have already been performed. (Like I said earlier, I'm not very well-read on the subject, so you'd know better than I.) If they have been done, what were the results. If they haven't been done, why not?
It’s a good research question, especially since one of the main defenses of the non-replicabiltiy (if that wasn’t a word before, it is now) of experiments to test the existence of psi is the strong dependence of those phenomena on the psychological state of the subjects. If that’s true, it is only reasonable to test which psychological variables are most crucial to psi functioning. If it’s only an excuse to mask poor experimental design, then it makes perfect sense to block further investigation of the issue. But I tend not to believe in conspiracies – people aren’t that easy to control when it comes to keeping secrets – so my guess is that someone has done a study like that. The question then becomes, what were the results, was the study sound, and have the results been replicated by independent researchers?
So where does he believe the mind resides, if it encompasses more than the physical senses?Quote:
Originally posted by pj
I've just started into a book called The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind, by Rupert Sheldrake. He continues to do extensive research on what he refers to as the "seventh sense." His premise is simply that the mind is not the brain, and the sphere of influence of the mind is much broader than our physical senses.