Thread: The Economic Argument

Won't accept the existing evidence? What is the existing evidence again? That a significant minority of people believe it's true and have for a long time? That's the only evidence for its truth that you've offered me. If this is the most compelling evidence you can think of, then is it really surprising to you that I remain skeptical? Significant minorities have long believed and will long continue to believe in ideas which are bad, foolish, or just plain wrong. Such endorsement thus says little about the merit of a particular idea. If you're suggesting that this view represents bias or stubbornness on my part, then I'm suggesting that you misunderstand the meaning of evidence.

To answer your questions, I would require two things. First, an explanation for why we don't see things like tarot represented in major scientific journals, utilized by governments, sold by large companies, or generally endorsed by any kind of legitimate authority figure anywhere. You offered an explanation for this earlier (self-interest) which I suggested was incomplete; that was how I got involved in this thread. In light of its incompleteness, a new explanation would be required. Second, after considering this explanation, I would require new data--data of that horrible, objective type--demonstrating that, if we then take the issues in the explanation into account, we can actually see fairly clear evidence that things like tarot have demonstrable, non-chance, objective outcomes in the world, even if they only pertain to tiny domains such as one person's future and only have tiny effects. I don't expect these things to be huge or world-altering, I would just expect them to have some kind of demonstrable outcome if these claims are to be substantiated. Establishing this kind of data would require samples larger than one, rigorous controls; in short, all the features of proper science. (I'll generously refrain from accusing you of bias if you decline attempts to obtain this evidence.)

I'd be happy to be even more concrete about exactly what this data would look like and how it would need to be collected, but I'd have to hear more first about precisely what the claims behind tarot are, what the proposed mechanisms are, etc., if I'm to think of a good representative design to test the ideas. This wouldn't be useful in the sense that one of us would then go run the experiment and examine the data, but it should at least be useful in the sense that it will give you and others a clear understanding of exactly the kind of evidence people are looking for.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that things like tarot have "profound and real subjective truth" (even if I'm not completely clear on what is meant by this), but I don't see why it can't have some degree of profound and real objective truth as well. Although you haven't come out and said it explicitly, I've gotten the sense that you think such objective data would be impossible to produce even in principle and therefore that an experiment could never be decisive on the topic. Is this your view? If so, why exactly is that the case? If not, good: let's talk experiments.

To throw in my 2 cents again, the way I see it is that I haven't yet decided whether I believe in the paranormal yet. What I have decided is that most evidence I've seen suggests that the sorts of things tested tend to produce unreliable results, which I can accept. Nothing subjective is going to produce results 100% of the time. The important thing in my opinion is that these things at least do no harm. It really is harmless to try it for yourself DuB, and see what you think about it. That's what I did with various paranormal or subjective experiences, and I finally found the basic energy work to be something I can get a good grasp on.

Also, did you see the video I linked earlier? The first half or so of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLMm...eature=related It may not be published in a scientific journal, but it sounds like a pretty clear case that someone has tried doing objective experiments on OBEs... with success.

Originally Posted by Singularity125

The first half or so of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLMm...eature=related

Malformed link

Well I just wrote a huge post, and my browser decided to back out of the page, so let me start again and this time I think I'm going to take it in a different direction.

There is evidence! There are thousands of scientific papers written on these subjects. People have been gathering data for years and years. You just have to look for it. Read through some of the stuff that Bob Monroe has compiled. (The Monroe Institute). Think about the existing scientific community for a second. Imagine yourself undertaking the task of experimenting with OBE's or crystal energy or whatever (maybe to win a bet, or whatever else might actually motivate you to do this). Imagine that beyond your wildest doubts, you actually do come up with compelling evidence to support out of body experiences. Can you honestly say that you believe any respected scientific journal is going to publish it? There is no conspiracy barring this sort of evidence from coming to light, its just far far too beyond the main stream of accepted scientific reality that no one would touch it. Science works by expanding its horizon by tiny fractions, slowly building on previously accepted assumptions. The scientific community is necessarily extremely skeptical. Unfortunately that means that if something is far enough outside of the norm then it is not even worth bothering with for the vast majority of the scientific community.

I want to try to explain the tarot again (for the third time now since that's what my deleted post was mostly about)

The tarot does not exactly predict future events. You can't sit down with the cards and divine where the dow jones is going to end up next friday. The tarot readings that I have seen have been a narrative describing the person's current trajectory. It will say, this is what you have been doing, this is what is happening in your life now, and this is the direction it will take you if you continue this way. These are the things you can change if you would like to end up somewhere better, these are the things you should avoid if you don't want things to get worse. The tarot is subjective. It works by showing you to yourself. As someone who is very familiar with the scientific method, I can honestly say that I cannot think of any way to test the tarot to your satisfaction because a tarot reading only has significance to the one person receiving it. The only thing that I can think of is to study it in the same way that many psychological tests are done; sit down 50 (or 100, 1000, etc.) people and give them readings and then survey to find out how many people found them significant, and compare it to chance. Another way you could go about it is get 50 people who can read the tarot, and have them all do a reading for one person and see how they compare.

I have more to say, but I'm going to wait until I can recharge my thought process. Typing 6 or so paragraphs only to have them erased really takes it out of me.

Originally Posted by DuB

First, an explanation for why we don't see things like tarot represented in major scientific journals, utilized by governments, sold by large companies, or generally endorsed by any kind of legitimate authority figure anywhere.

I already offered my explanation why tarot isn't "popular". Christianity teaches against tarot. Priests and pastors tell their church going members that dealing with tarot is dealing with the devil. Christianity also teaches against astrology.

"Legitimate authoritative figures" aren't going to go public about their tarot interest when Christianity and its values is still so strong in the political scene. That doesn't mean that there aren't already "legitimate authoritive figures" using it. There is also the stigma that you're a total nut job if you do. Even if science enlightens us about tarot, or astrology, it will still take years for the bias to subside.

Look at marijuana. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, there is such a bad bias against it despite being a drunken nation.

And even thought that's illegal, you think that means no one in the white house is smoking it? Endorsement doesn't equal legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Malformed link

Whoops! It works right in the post I made on page 2. Let's try it again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLMm...eature=related

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to find on the Monroe site. I poked around and checked out the "Journal archives" but pretty much everything I saw was about "Hemi-sync" which apparently is some commercial binaural beats software. I also saw something about another product called "Meta-music." I didn't see anything about tarot or any other paranormal/supernatural/etc. topic.

Regarding publication in mainstream journals. Parapsychology papers have popped up a few times in respected, mainstream psychology journals, each time (from what I've uncovered) claiming to show ESP in a particular experimental paradigm called the Ganzfeld procedure. Journal editors are not afraid to publish these articles; they are willing to publish them if they find them sufficiently compelling. However, these papers have not been received well, and they have been typically followed by methodological/statistical critiques as well as reports of failures to replicate in independent laboratories. Below are citations and abstracts from perhaps the most well known of these exchanges. Most of these articles are unfortunately behind pay-walls (you may be able to hunt copies down with some creative Googling) but you can get the gist from the abstracts.

Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer.
Bem, Daryl J.; Honorton, Charles
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 115(1), Jan 1994, pp. 4-18

Spoiler for abstract:

Most academic psychologists do not yet accept the existence of psi, anomalous processes of information or energy transfer (e.g., telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception) that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. It is believed that the replication rates and effect sizes achieved by 1 particular experimental method, the ganzfeld procedure, are now sufficient to warrant bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community. Competing meta-analysis of the ganzfeld database are reviewed, one by R. Hyman (see record 1986-05166-001), a skeptical critic of psi research, and the other by C. Honorton (see record 1986-05165-001), a parapsychologist and major contributor to the ganzfeld database. Next the results of 11 new ganzfeld studies that comply with guidelines jointly authored by R. Hyman and C. Honorton (see record 1987-12537-001) are summarized. Issues of replication and theoretical explanation are discussed

Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer.
Milton, Julie; Wiseman, Richard
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 125(4), Jul 1999, pp. 387-391

Spoiler for abstract:

D. J. Bern and C. Honorton (1994) recently presented in this journal a set of ganzfeld extrasensory perception (ESP) experiments conducted by C. Honorton that appeared to support the existence of a communication anomaly. In this article, the authors present a meta analysis of 30 ganzfeld ESP studies from 7 independent laboratories adhering to the same stringent methodological guidelines that C. Honorton followed. The studies failed to confirm his main effect of participants scoring above change on the ESP task, Souffer z = 0.70, p = .24, one-tailed; M effect size (z/N1/2) = 0.013, SD = 0.23. The new studies included replication attempts of 3 out of 5 internal effects reported as statistically significant by D. J. Bern and C. Honorton. Only 1 was confirmed, and the authors found the D. J. Bern and C. Honorton were mistaken in describing the original effect as being statistically significant. The authors conclude that the ganzfeld technique does not at present offer a replicable method for producing ESP in the laboratory.

Does psi exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) meta-analysis of Ganzfield research.
Storm, Lance; Ertel, Suitbert
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 127(3), May 2001, pp. 424-433

Spoiler for abstract:

J. Milton and R. Wiseman (1999) attempted to replicate D. Bern and C. Honorton's (1994) meta-analysis, which yielded evidence that the ganzfeld is a suitable method for demonstrating anomalous communication. Using a database of 30 ganzfeld and autoganzfeld studies, Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis yielded an effect size (ES) of only 0.013 (Stouffer Z = 0.70, p = .24, one-tailed). Thus they failed to replicate Bem and Honorton's finding (ES = 0.162, Stouffer Z = 2.52, p = 5.90 × 10-3, one-tailed). The authors conducted stepwise performance comparisons between all available databases of ganzfeld research. Larger aggregates of such studies were formed, including a database comprising 79 ganzfeld-autoganzfeld studies (ES = 0.138, Stouffer Z = 5.66, p = 7.78 × 10-9). Thus Bern and Honorton's positive conclusion was confirmed. More accurate population parameters for the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld domains were calculated. Significant bidirectional psi effects were also found in all databases. The ganzfeld appears to be a replicable technique for producing psi effects in the laboratory.

Does psi exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001).
Milton, Julie; Wiseman, Richard
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 127(3), May 2001, pp. 434-438

Spoiler for abstract:

The authors recently published a nonsignificant meta-analysis of 30 extrasensory perception ganzfeld studies, all conducted after the 1986 publication of important methodological guidelines aimed at reducing sources of artifact noted in earlier studies. In response, L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001) presented a meta-analysis of 79 studies published between 1974 and 1996. They argued that the positive and highly statistically significant overall outcome indicates a replicable paranormal effect. In doing so, they ignored the well-documented and widely recognized methodological problems in the early studies, which make it impossible to interpret the results as evidence of extrasensory perception. In addition, Storm and Ertel's meta-analysis is not an accurate quantitative summary of ganzfeld research because of methodological problems such as their use of an inconsistent method for calculating study outcomes and inconsistent inclusion criteria.

Amusingly, we now see the exchange moved to a fringe journal, "Journal of Parapsychology"...

The Ganzfeld debate continued: A response to Milton and Wiseman (2001)
Author(s): Storm L, Ertel S
Source: Journal of Parapsychology Volume: 66 Issue: 1 Pages: 73-82 Published: MAR 2002

Spoiler for abstract:

Most researchers in parapsychological circles and beyond are familiar with the ganzfeld debate, which was revived in a series of articles that appeared in Psychological Bulletin This article is a response to J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (2001) reply to L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001), who took issue with J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (1999a) claim that the evidence for psi in the ganzfeld was not replicable. The authors (Storm & Ertel) argue that in their reply, J. Milton and R. Wiseman (2001) misrepresented the issues raised in R. Hyman and C. Honorton's (1986) joint Communique to their advantage. Milton and Wiseman wrongly took the standards of the Communique as implying low quality of all previous studies and downplayed the accumulated evidence that doubts about the credibility of pre-Communique ganzfeld researchers were unwarranted. They wrongfully belittled statistical significance, an important contributor to empirical evidence, and on mere circumstantial grounds, they ignored the necessity of the bidirectionality test, which is acknowledged as a unique psi indicator. The authors reassess the effect sizes for the various ganzfeld databases and conclude that Milton and Wiseman's critique is essentially out of place. For future ganzfeld and psi research in general, the authors recommend a process-oriented strategy.

A response to Storm and Ertel (2002)
Author(s): Milton J, Wiseman R
Source: Journal of Parapsychology Volume: 66 Issue: 2 Pages: 183-185 Published: JUN 2002

Spoiler for abstract:

Storm and Ertel (2001) published a meta-analysis of 79 ganzfeld studies published between 1974 and 1996. They used substantially inconsistent inclusion criteria to form the database and included studies with well-documented methodological problems. Using a methodological quality scale that omitted important items such as the use of duplicate target sets, they assessed only 11 of the 79 studies and weighted those 11 studies by the quality scores. They claimed that the highly statistically significant cumulated outcome represented strong evidence for psi. As the authors (Milton & Wiseman, 2001) argued in their earlier response, the inclusion of a large proportion of studies with methodological problems and the inconsistent methods of handling studies make it impossible to interpret the cumulated probability at face value.

And there the exchange finally terminates.

For some reason I forgot to post this video.



Hope this stops the pitiable 'you have to be altruistic for it to work' crap.

Har-de-har. Homeopathy never made sense to me, either. And sure, anyone can make a profit off of gullible people. People do that all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean the underlying idea is invalid, though. I'm willing to keep open-minded about all of these. Granted, I'm more open to some than others... but I haven't outright shot down any of them.

It's really funny that homeopathy is now seen as similar to astrology or crystal energy or whatever, because it was never supposed to be supernatural or paranormal, it was invented by a doctor. Its sort of telling how failed scientific theories and the occult, paranormal, spiritual, etc. are all lumped together so they all undermine each other's integrity. This way, if any of them seem ridiculous to someone, they all do.

Dub; I have to apologize about the monroeinstitute link, I should have checked it out first. I've read in a different source that bob monroe had published OBE research and I just assumed it would be on his website.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It's really funny that homeopathy is now seen as similar to astrology or crystal energy or whatever, because it was never supposed to be supernatural or paranormal, it was invented by a doctor. Its sort of telling how failed scientific theories and the occult, paranormal, spiritual, etc. are all lumped together so they all undermine each other's integrity. This way, if any of them seem ridiculous to someone, they all do.

The thing is that a lot of people end up believing in all of them. At least in my personal experience, someone that believes in either homeopathy or astrology is far more likely to believe in the other than someone that doesn't. Regardless of its origin, it takes the sort of person that is willing to 'believe' to believe in any of it. The reason for this is easy to see: There is nothing that we objectively know about the universe that would lead a sane person to believe that the positions of stars are any more likely to affect the well being of a person than ingesting a small amount pure water (or whatever substrate) which is what homeopathy boils down to. The fact that the pure water has been taken from water with a few molecules of substance in it and shaken in a very particular matter does nothing to change the facts.

So, from the scientific perspective, all of these theories are of pretty much of the same category: that of ideas with no significant supporting evidence and no scientifically valid, theoretical framework that would lead one to believe that there is anything worth investigating.

The fact that homeopathy started as a scientific theory (More accurately a theory of medicine before medicine had really started to adopt the scientific method) is irrelevant except as an example of how science inevitably progresses and casts aside bad ideas.

Astrology has nothing to do with stars affecting people's well being. Would it make more sense if instead of using astronomical bodies as markers, people just said something like, "People born in the spring time are likely to share certain personality traits since their development is influenced by similar conditions"? Basically all you are saying by lumping all these things together is "everything I don't believe in is the same".

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Astrology has nothing to do with stars affecting people's well being.

I'm a Capricorn/Aquarius cusp with a Leo moon and Scorpio rising. Let's see what Rob Brezsny has to say for the current week:

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): Connie Post, my beloved former editor at
the Dayton Daily News, sent me a haiku-like poem that I'd like you to
ponder: "November trees / which are living? / which are dead?" I'm
hoping this will put you in the mood to mull over an even bigger question,
namely: What parts of your own life are withering and what parts are
thriving? In my astrological opinion, it's very important that you know the
difference, and act accordingly.

This can be construed in two ways. Either it's always true that everybody should know what parts of their life are withering and what parts are thriving (I agree with this), or it is (and this is supported by the bit about "astrological opinion") important that Capricorns especially know the difference for this particular week. That seems to have something to do with my well being. If it doesn't, then why is it very important. (unless it pertains to someone else's well being, in which case the stars are still influencing somebody's well being)

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): Numerologists say the number 10 signifies
completion, wholeness, totality. It could rightly serve as your lucky
number in the coming weeks -- a symbol of your power to draw long-term
processes to a climax on your own terms. But you might also want to
consider using 11 as your emblem of good mojo. That number denotes
the drive to surpass the success you've earned before -- to transcend
easy triumphs and conventional wisdom so as to reach for a more
challenging conquest. Either way, Aquarius, I think you'll be flying high for
the foreseeable future, so there's no need to worry about which way you
should go. If you do choose 11, the risks will be somewhat greater and
the rewards more interesting.

Apparently the constellations are positioned so that I will be flying high for the foreseeable future. Again, this seems to directly relate to my well being. I'll spare the Leo and Scorpio parts: I hope that this has made my point at least about descriptive astrology.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Would it make more sense if instead of using astronomical bodies as markers, people just said something like, "People born in the spring time are likely to share certain personality traits since their development is influenced by similar conditions"?

That is physically conceivable but is not related to astrology because when it's spring in the northern hemisphere, it's fall in the southern hemisphere. This means that in one hemisphere, the development occurred primarily in the winter and in the other, primarily in the summer. Either way your'e a Taurus with the same moon sign which depends on the year

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Basically all you are saying by lumping all these things together is "everything I don't believe in is the same".

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying:

Originally Posted by me

So, from the scientific perspective, all of these theories are of pretty much of the same category: that of ideas with no significant supporting evidence and no scientifically valid, theoretical framework that would lead one to believe that there is anything worth investigating.

This is providing a clear category of ideas. It happens that all but two of the topics addressed in the comic fit into it. If you feel that any of them don't fit into that category, please feel free to explain which ones and why you feel that they don't belong in the category. You may change my mind. Believe it or not, I'm a fairly open minded person.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It's really funny that homeopathy is now seen as similar to astrology or crystal energy or whatever, because it was never supposed to be supernatural or paranormal, it was invented by a doctor. Its sort of telling how failed scientific theories and the occult, paranormal, spiritual, etc. are all lumped together so they all undermine each other's integrity. This way, if any of them seem ridiculous to someone, they all do.

They all fit neatly into the same group... pseudoscience.

The way I see it, most of these at least do no harm. Whether you believe them or not, I see no reason not to let other people believe them if they so choose. For my personal beliefs, though, I find it much easier to trust people who aren't looking for money. People selling their techniques or healing, or whatever, have a real vested interest in whether or not you believe them. They will make outlandish claims, skew any research they may be drawing on for support, or anything else, to get you to buy what they're selling. Just like any other salesman these days. People offering their services cheaply, or for free, do not gain much by scamming you. They genuinely just want to help people. Sure, whatever they're using may or may not actually have an effect, but at least you know that they themselves believe it.

For an obvious scam, look at what arrived in my inbox: EnlightenQ - The doorway to enlightenment is now open for you to walk through if you choose!
$477 for meditation techniques? Seriously!? And it's so popular that he's taking it down until 2011? Sounds like he's faking artificial demand to get people to buy into it, if you ask me. "Call in the next 20 minutes and..."

Pulling astrology readings out of the newspaper in order to discredit them is like pulling scientific discovery stories out of the tabloids.

It all comes down to, who do you trust? Do you trust the American and Russian governments that spent millions of dollars on remote viewing projects during the cold war?

Do you trust hospitals that use the practice of healing touch and reiki, or "energy healing"?

Do you trust Carl Jung and his interest in the tarot, i-ching, and other forms of divination?

Astrology does take the different hemispheres into account, but there are also seasons beyond summer winter spring and fall. There are patterns that you are a part of, even if you are not overtly aware of them.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

They all fit neatly into the same group... pseudoscience.

I have to disagree with this. Only homeopathy strikes me as making any scientific pretenses. Aura reading is certainly not a pseudoscience (though there may be pseudo-scientists claiming to have evidence for it)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Pulling astrology readings out of the newspaper in order to discredit them is like pulling scientific discovery stories out of the tabloids.

Except that I'm not pulling astrology readings out of the newspaper to discredit astrology. I'm doing it to demonstrate that astrology claims to be related to well being. What better source for that than actual common use? Also, the astrology readings in newspapers are written by actual astrologers. Science discovery stories in tabloids are not written by actual scientists. Really, I have a hard time believing that we are actually debating this point. Of course people are interested in astrology because they would like, in one way or another, to improve their lives and hence their well being.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It all comes down to, who do you trust? Do you trust the American and Russian governments that spent millions of dollars on remote viewing projects during the cold war?

Do you trust hospitals that use the practice of healing touch and reiki, or "energy healing"?

Do you trust Carl Jung and his interest in the tarot, i-ching, and other forms of divination?

This form of argument is really not worth responding to. I trust solid arguments and not blind appeals to authority. The fact that some hospitals are instituting a feel good program and a few governments were grasping at straws during an insane period of history doesn't really do much to convince me. Jung has, AFAIK, been pretty thoroughly reduced to pseudoscience even if I think that a slight retooling of his ideas could be placed on an evolutionary footing. I do have a lot of respect for him but, again AFAIK, his interest in divination was related to his interest in synchronicity which he meant as an explanation of attaching significance to coincidence and not a mechanism for coincidence to occur.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Astrology does take the different hemispheres into account, but there are also seasons beyond summer winter spring and fall. There are patterns that you are a part of, even if you are not overtly aware of them.

Say what? The three signs and all of the houses all vary on longitude only because it affects the time of birth which is symmetric on both sides of the equator as it relates to time of birth. Can you back this up at all?

Okay, the "pseudoscience" word gets tossed around with way too much bias here. Please define for me what you mean by pseudoscience. Because there are researches being done right now at the university level, by scientists with PhDs, but because their research goes into spiritual subjects, people automatically call it pseudoscience. (BIAS)

So what is it?

What makes the pseudo in pseudoscience? What makes the pseudo in the pseudoscientist? I want a clear definition, rather than relying on the "well if it SOUNDS like new age then it MUST be pseudoscience" excuse

The opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article sums it up nicely:

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.

So, new agers claiming to see auras or study how ki/kundalini work would not be pseudo-scientists while those claiming that science supports those claims would be. I'm also going to consider homeopathy as a pseudoscience because it makes pretenses at having scientific status when it doesn't.

What makes the pseudo in pseudoscience?

The Church.

What makes the pseudo in the pseudoscientist?

The Christ.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I have to disagree with this. Only homeopathy strikes me as making any scientific pretenses. Aura reading is certainly not a pseudoscience (though there may be pseudo-scientists claiming to have evidence for it)

In my experience, as soon as someone starts trying to explain these phenomena, it becomes pseudoscience (as the person usually tries to present "rational" evidence or the testimonies of "experts").

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In my experience, as soon as someone starts trying to explain these phenomena, it becomes pseudoscience (as the person usually tries to present "rational" evidence or the testimonies of "experts").

This is a good point as well. In my opinion, the honest explanation isn't even an explanation: "It just works. I don't know how but that's my experience." Of course, in all probability it doesn't just work. I still think that the fields themselves aren't pseudoscience.

A lot of things relate to well being. Just looking up at the stars affects my well being; is that evidence that a person's well being can be affected by astronomical bodies? Those weekly readings pertained to well being in that they implied that being aware of certain things based on their astrological sign would help their well being, not that there was some unseen force stretching down from the stars to affect the person's mood.

Astrological charts describe where the stars are at your birth. They can take into account the different hemispheres and where you were born in relation to them. Certain signs can manifest in the hidden houses below the horizon, which is dependent on the location of your birth.
Chart shapes - Astrodienst

Originally Posted by http://www.lunarliving.org/astrology/hemispheres_quadrants1.shtml

* [Exception] When the chart is cast for locations south of the equator, the hemispheres are flipped. Some astrologers, but not all, will adjust for the house placements through the hemispheres. Needless to say, the information above may not be applicable for charts created with a south latitude location.

So because you can label the cold war insane, it discredits the government even though the remote viewing project went on for 2 decades. At this point, I can't really give you any real evidence since its all still classified, but doesn't it make you the least bit curious to know that they thought it had enough merit to continue for 20 years?

You say that hospitals are introducing "feel good" practices. Isn't that what hospitals and medicine are supposed to do; make you feel good? If it is "feel good", doesn't that mean it works?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

The Church.

The Christ.

Ehh, please don't drag in religion. That's a whole new can of worms I don't think anyone wants to deal with. Anyway, to respond to Spartiate and Philosopher, it sounds like you're fine with people having their own beliefs and methodology... as long as they make no attempt to explain it. But the second they start trying to explain or prove it, it's pseudoscience? Even if the experiments currently being done aren't up to scientific snuff (and they probably aren't), they're still a step towards a full explanation. No scientific phenomena was fully explained by the first theories thrown out there. There are always missteps and stabs in the dark in the process. As much as I like quantum mechanics, don't try to tell me it's anything but just that. They honestly don't know what's going on at the quantum level, they're just making observations as they see them. Some people dismiss that as pseudoscience, too, you know. All I'm saying is, if these guys get continually shot down as pseudoscience, they might not make it to the point of having a fully valid theory. Ignore them if you want, but we need to let them do their own thing for a while and see what comes out of it.