Psychic abilities and phenomena: the scientific/skeptic analysis
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, August 26, 2006 22:49
VIEWED: 10059
PAGE 4 of 11
Quote:Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Therefore, you don't have to reject one side in order to accept the other. A scientist has no need to jump to such conclusions.
Originally posted by rue:
...(while at the same time rejecting the studies that have failed to document these phenomena) and conclude there is such a thing.
That's the problem. People don't like to wait to come to a conclusion. They want to have closure, NOW. Some people have extraordinarily intuitive or coincidental experiences. They quickly conclude paranormal, psychic phenomena must exist. Some scientists find nothing extraordinary in the psychics they sampled and studied. They quickly conclude paranormal, psychic phenomena must not exist. In reality, neither conclusion is warranted. What is warranted is an open mind and more research.
The truth is, science is not the field to embrace if one has a strong need for closure. The need for the open mind and further research never ends.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." This is a statement that ignores a basic assymetry of science: it can't prove anything, only disprove.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think there was anything insulting about what CUNKNOWN said in the other thread. He offered a perspective that was lacking from the other points of view in the thread. If it was intended that that thread be for purely speculative and anecdotal arguments, as the title suggested, then perhaps someone should have politely mentioned that to CUNKNOWN, but accusations of ignorance is a little like calling the kettle black.
First of all what is and is not insulting is not objective reality, it is subjective. So your discounting the subjective reaction of several other people is not informative or even relevant really; it's just insensitive, Finn. However, feeling insulted has real social value and the appropriate thing to say when someone feels insulted is "I'm sorry." To not do so, is a further insult. You want to insult a body, go ahead; but to do it, even unknowingly, and then deny that you did it is just evasive and, as I said, insulting.
Secondly, the subject of the thread was perfectly clear without explanation. What CUnknown did is called thread hijacking. To post on a thread simply to denounce everyone who has posted on it is straight-up trolling.
Thirdly, Ruxton did exactly what you suggested:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
CUNKNOWN,
You seem to have major limitations in your background and/or experiences. Are you not aware of the use of remote viewing by many government's secret services? Are you not aware that it works for some folks?
You're a doubter and that's fine, but please don't put your limitations on those who know better. I don't mean to disparage your thoughts, but it's evident you are not capable of feeing things that others are, or you'd never have made your statements.
And that's about as kindly and polite as I've ever seen him, Finn. Course, when this polite suggestion was roundly ignored, Ruxton got a bit riled up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Although, if one cannot accept the fact that evidence for psychic abilities is miniscule and often more adequately explained with coincidence, then it draws one’s own observations and experiences into question, because it suggests that these observations and experiences are based on an irrational analysis. So I’m of the mind to believe that any discussion on psychic ability is basically trivial without the so-called “Scully” perspective to anchor it, or act as a control, as it were.
Evidence for psychic abilities is not "miniscule" to people who have personally experienced such things all their lives. For them, such evidence can be overwhelming. The concept of coincidence was made for your way of thinking by people who think as you do. In my view, there are no coincidences; nothing is a matter of mere chance. Everything has meaning. I can't always discern it, but that only describes my limitation, not reality's.
I have been a professional psychic reader at various times in my life and given countless accurate readings, all of which might have been lucky guesses, absolutely. From an objective standpoint, my guides could all be figments of my imagination and I'm just making stuff up. But if I am, I'm a very lucky guy--and quite a nutjob to boot! I've also been totally unable to read certain folks at all. I tend to be able to connect with most people I encounter in the world, but there are some people who are just blank to me. But that don't mean they're "meaningless."
Ironically, these folks don't tend to be the skeptics. Being a professional psychic means having to deal with a good many skeptics and people coming to challenge me. I'm generally pretty good at freaking these folks out. I once won hundreds of thousands of dollars in play money playing roulette at a Microsoft Christmas party. I got the exact winning number five times and got next to the right number something like fifteen times. My bets would follow the winning number around the table, getting closer and closer until I'd
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CantTakeMySky:
Imagine you were a marine biologist studying a new species of sulfur-farting crab you'd just discovered. Sulfur farts don't exist in crabs, your colleagues say, but here it is. You'd document how you sampled the farts and how they were tested for sulfur. You'd keep a log and journal, not only of its sulfur farts, but of all habits and functions. You'd write down all the questions (where does the sulfur come from?), and look for patterns that might reveal the answers (could it be from the shrimp it eats?).
What if this 'sulphur fart' was very rare, only once in a hundred normal 'farts', and their was no discernable reason prior (like eating some shrimp) that caused it.
But it happened, occasionally.
Now move that premise into something more intangibile, something harder to define and impossible for an outside party to observe.
HK:
As ever your posts are Insightful and elequent.
Quote:
Origianlly posted by HKCavalier:
First of all what is and is not insulting is not objective reality, it is subjective. So your discounting the subjective reaction of several other people is not informative or even relevant really; it's just insensitive, Finn. However, feeling insulted has real social value and the appropriate thing to say when someone feels insulted is "I'm sorry." To not do so, is a further insult. You want to insult a body, go ahead; but to do it, even unknowingly, and then deny that you did it is just evasive and, as I said, insulting.
Basically what I've been trying (and failing) to say for the last few posts...
Your points lower down about scientific study were more or less what I was trying to get at.
Quote:
Being a professional psychic means having to deal with a good many skeptics and people coming to challenge me. I'm generally pretty good at freaking these folks out.
But they probably weren't persuaded, went away thinking coincidence?
I mean no one is going to be able to persuade me that these things don't exist, anymore than I am likely to convince someone that they do.
I mentioned earlier that I am a fairly rational, scientifically minded person. I believe what I see and what I've experinced, and what seems reasonable based off of that.
Thus I believe in psychic/paranormal experiences I've seen them, they are as tangible as a rock to me.
But how do you prove to the majority of people who haven't expereinced such things that they exist?
I have no doubt that if I hadn't experienced such things that I would be on the otherside of the argument, but I have, and I'm not.
To butcher a (you'll like this Chrisisall) Spock quote:
"It would be impossible to explain without a common frame of refrence."
Quote:
I was shocked with extensive evidence of the crucifixion; apparently, 2000 years ago, something pretty major happened on a planetary level centering in Jerusalem having to do with a guy named Jesus who died on a cross. My ideology had to bow to contrary evidence. I've tried to steer clear of ideology ever since. And I'm a lot nicer to Christians.
I think theres extensive records and evidence of a man named Jesus Christ being executed by crucifixtion. My problem with christianity is, and always has been Gods 'human' portrayl, and whether or not Christ was infact the son of God.
To give an alternate view though, Christs death has had a profound effect on the world. One man dying has litterally changed every persons life since, christian or not. Whether he was the son of God is unimportant, the belief was there, so the followers took up the flag and marched.
And they did a lot, some good, some bad, in his name.
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, my statement was simply a catchy way of saying, just because you haven't found it yet doesn't prove it doesn't exist. It is a point of logic, not a dismissal of your so-called assymetry. If you want to get technical, the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as proof of absence.
Originally posted by rue:
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." This is a statement that ignores a basic assymetry of science: it can't prove anything, only disprove.
Secondly, you got it backwards. In terms of existence, science can only prove, not disprove. It can only prove that giraffes exist. It can't disprove the existence of unicorns.
Thirdly, the only thing science can REALLY do is tell you whether your hypothesis was able to predict your results, or not. If it was able to predict your results, it means your model is worth investigating further. If it wasn't able to predict your results, it means your model was not a good predictor. You can choose to extrapolate this as science cannot prove a model, only disprove it. But that's not really accurate. The way science works is actually a lot more limited and precise than that.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. That is why this subject is so hard to study, and why people can't come to any definite conclusions from the few studies that do exist.
Originally posted by citizen:
What if this 'sulphur fart' was very rare, only once in a hundred normal 'farts', and their was no discernable reason prior (like eating some shrimp) that caused it.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That actually describes my friend very well. But see, these are precisely the patterns that can lend themselves to scientific study. It would be hard to study, but with a good design and enough volunteers, it can be done.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Because personal desire absolutely short-circuits my psychic gift....The other reason that psychic abilities do not respond well to scientific inquiry is that psychic awareness is a survival mechanism. All of the very gifted people I've met have suffered some kind of horrendous life-threatening trauma that triggered their gift
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thats the problem...
You want to disprove it, you'll do exactly that.
You want to prove it, then hell, you'll do that too.
This isn't like most things, our subjective beliefs and desires can effect our results more than in other experiments/observations.
So the side that believes says it came out false cause thats what you wanted, and the disbelievers turn around and say the exact same thing.
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, there is a neat little paradox in that if a genuine psychic wanted to prove his powers and yet self-interest deactivates them, he'd be unable to do so. The only option I can see is having scientists find a supposed psychic who is trying to conceal his powers, abduct him, run tests on him that punish him for failing to be psychic until they get some readings one way or the other.
The reason why I'm not hugely impressed by people who claim to be psychic is partly due to Derren Brown, who regularly does "psychic" events, only to immediately show how he did it and how easily you can pick up on things by instinct/training. In fact, his show is basically an excellent guide to the fact that beneath our layers of intelligence, consciousness and humanity, there's a very dumb animal underneath that can be fooled any which way.
For those of you who haven't seen him, Derren Brown is a magician/illusionist/psychologist/conman (his own description) who does lots of things you'd get from your average psychic like picking out someone's name, address, their first girlfriend's name, what object they'd pick out in a room of 150 objects, what path someone will take in a supermarket to buy a particular item that he's put into their subconscious.
I'd urge anyone who has witnessed an apparently inexplicable phenomenon to watch his shows (he's apparently even better live) and see whether the feats he performs are even more baffling.
Of course, there's now a movement that claims he actually is a psychic and his real con is persuading people that he isn't... 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've seen Derren Brown on many occassions, I like his show a lot. In fact a friend/neighbour/work colleague of mine met him in London not long ago. Apparently it was a bit of a funny experience, he met him on the street by the metropol building, which is across the road from Victoria gardens.
So he says Derren Brown kind looked right into him when as they spoke (guess thats kind part of his whole pyschology thing), and a very approachable person to boot.
As for the guy being psychic, nope, at least no more than any of the rest of us, just knows the human animal really well.
And yeah, there is a lot of charlatans out there, but theres a lot in every walk of life, don't mean that everyones a charlatan.
I remember a run in I had with a faith healer who told me she could cure my headache. When it didn't work it was my fault for not believing she could cure me.
But surely if me believing she could cure me was the deciding factor, at the end of the day the person doing the healing would have been me, through the placebo effect...
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME