Real World Event Discussions
Psychic abilities and phenomena: the scientific/skeptic analysis
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, August 26, 2006 22:49
VIEWED: 10059
PAGE 8 of 11
Monday, September 26, 2005 1:04 PM
Quote:I think your interpretation of what I’ve said is rather convenient, but probably not terribly representative of my posts, since I have never claimed that “lack of scientific study . . . proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.” In fact, my first post in this thread was to suggest that there has, indeed, been considerable scientific study.
Originally posted by citizen:
Thank you and well said...
See, to a degree thats the problem with Finn and CUnknowns arguments, lack of scientific study to them proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.
Frankly if such an attitude was prevelant within the scientific community we'd still be in the dark ages.
You insist that you want to “see some proof before [[]you[]] believe that CUnknown is this great eminent scientist.” Even though, Cunknown never claimed to be any such “great eminent scientist.” Why is that? You don’t place the same restrictions on yourself. Why don’t you prove to us that your alleged experiences are real or at least why don’t you provide some proof that you are a credible source? Why should we believe you if you are unwilling to provide the same proof you demand from others?
A lack of evidence does not necessarily prove that something doesn’t exist. The problem, however, is that if you don’t have enough evidence to bias one conclusion in favor of others, then an open-minded, rational and dispassionate thinker should see that all conclusions not restricted by the evidence are therefore equally favored. What this means is that in the absence of evidence it is possible that psychic phenomena exists, however, it is equally possible that those who claim psychic ability exists are liars or mistaken or gremlins made them do it. It is not that I think that lack of evidence proves psychic ability doesn’t exist, but rather that I think that it doesn’t prove you’re right, and I have no reason to believe you or not to believe that psychic phenomena is real.
And this is of course all assuming that there IS a lack of evidence. In reality there is considerable scientific study on this issue which has resulted in nothing conclusive. That is evidence. There are considerable examples of frauds, con-artists and magicians demonstrating how easily people can be fooled. This is also evidence, perhaps circumstantial, but evidence. I don’t think that this demonstrates that psychic phenomena don’t exist, but I do think that it justifies a healthy skepticism for so called anecdotal evidence.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 26, 2005 1:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I think your interpretation of what I’ve said is rather convenient, but probably not terribly representative of my posts, since I have never claimed that “lack of scientific study . . . proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.” In fact, my first post in this thread was to suggest that there has, indeed, been considerable scientific study.
Sorry, Finn, I meant to say seems, and that comment was aimed more at CUnknown than yourself. In fact I was thinking of removing your name from that line before you replied.
There has been some public scientific study, to my knowledge little has been followed up on, if you have an sources I would be grateful if you could direct me.
Quote:
You insist that you want to “see some proof before [[]you[]] believe that CUnknown is this great eminent scientist.” Even though, Cunknown never claimed to be any such “great eminent scientist.” Why is that? You don’t place the same restrictions on yourself. Why don’t you prove to us that your alleged experiences are real or at least why don’t you provide some proof that you are a credible source? Why should we believe you if you are unwilling to provide the same proof you demand from others?
You asked how do you know its not true [[]that CUnknown knows more about science than any one else here[]]?
You are the one asking for proof of everything Finn. Yet when it supports your argument you seem to expect the rest of us to accept it at face value. As for providing proof, I'm more than willing, what would you accept/believe?
How would I prove to a blind man that the sky is blue?
Quote:
The problem, however, is that if you don’t have enough evidence to bias one conclusion in favor of others, then an open-minded, rational and dispassionate thinker should see that all conclusions not restricted by the evidence are therefore equally favored.
Is it really beyond your imagination to assume that maybe I do have evidence, but evidence that can not be imparted to you? Theres that rational issue again, since I think psychic phenomena exists I'm irrational? Maybe the evidence I have is more in favor of existence? I have said on a number of occassions that I would be on your side of this debate, if it wasn't for my own experiences.
Quote:
What this means is that in the absence of evidence it is possible that psychic phenomena exists, however, it is equally possible that those who claim psychic ability exists are liars or mistaken or gremlins made them do it.
Only to those who have not experienced them.
Quote:
This is also evidence, perhaps circumstantial, but evidence. I don’t think that this demonstrates that psychic phenomena don’t exist, but I do think that it justifies a healthy skepticism for so called anecdotal evidence.
For you, this is true. For me the evidence is far from anecdotal.
Finn I have not had one problem really with your rejection of what I or others here have said. I have a problem with your continued defense of CUnknown on the basis that (s)he was being insulting, when, frankly you have no right to comment, as no possible insult was aimed at you.
That is all.
I welcome your perspective, I really do, though I entirely disagree with it. If you check pretty much all my posts, any attack I have made on your position were relating to your defense of CUnKnown.
Though I make one addendum.
Can you not see that your perspective is as biased as anyone elses here?
And that sweeping statements that imply, though I recognise you haven't outright said it, that some professed Psychics are charlatans therefore most/all are, are not useful to the discussion?
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 26, 2005 8:25 PM
But that's the thing about "personal experiences". They really only have the meaning that you ascribe to them. For example...
I was going to someone else's house for Bridge one evening. It was dark and even though the house was open, there was no-one there. I was confused, wandered around looking for the guy or either one of the playing partners but it really was empty. About five minutes later, they all arrived at the front door, having been just across the road dropping something off. (This is all just context).
Now I'd been asked to invite either Mike or Nick along to make up the four and had phoned up Nick to invite him along. However, when the three came in, I saw our two regular players and Mike. I was horrified because Nick was about to turn up and someone would have to go home. They noticed my look of horror and I explained that I thought we might have too many. Mike looked concerned but said that he was fine with going back himself. I explained that I'd left a message for Nick to join us. Mike looked at me strangely. He said "I'm Nick."
And he was. Even though I had up until that very moment seen Mike in front of me, it was Nick who I was talking to.
What did it mean? Nothing. My brain being quirky for no apparent reason. However, if instead of me seeing Mike, I had seen a dead relative, I'd have been convinced I had seen a ghost. It felt 100% real and I doubtlessly would have sworn to it in court.
But it wasn't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 26, 2005 10:19 PM
Quote:It’s not beyond my imagination. I can imagine a great many things, but I don’t necessarily hold it out as evidence, speculation maybe. Sometimes it can be beneficial to keep one’s imagination to one’s self. This is the crux of the whole matter. If I accept that you can hold your personal experiences as evidence, for which you have no corroboration and no one is allowed to criticize, then you have me at a disadvantage, do you not? Considering that this evidence exists purely in your head (as memories of said alleged experience or possibly mystical powers) then it seems that a logical consideration of said evidence is that you may not be telling the truth or may be mistaken. You’ve tied the validity of this evidence squarely to an assessment of your credibility, so outside of a purely authoritarian philosophy in which you are the Grand Poobah, I’m afraid corroborating evidence is needed.
Originally posted by citizen:
Is it really beyond your imagination to assume that maybe I do have evidence, but evidence that can not be imparted to you? Theres that rational issue again, since I think psychic phenomena exists I'm irrational? Maybe the evidence I have is more in favor of existence? I have said on a number of occassions that I would be on your side of this debate, if it wasn't for my own experiences.
It is interesting that your implication is that I’m “blind.” Do you believe your argument is infallible? Therefore criticism of it necessarily implies that the critic is wrong.
Quote:Whatever biases I may bring to the discussion do not change the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence for psychic phenomenon. I could be a strong proponent of psychic ability or a disbeliever; it wouldn’t change my position on the matter. In fact, as I’ve already said, I like to keep an open mind; I like to believe that psychic phenomenon is real. Whatever biases I bring to this discussion are more likely in favor of psychic phenomenon, then against, but that doesn’t change the fact that extensive studies have failed to produce any conclusive evidence, or that fraud and chance probably play a very big role in the supposed evidence that does exist. Indeed it is possible that psychic phenomenon is a completely false premise and those who support it are either charlatans or gullible. Not only do I think that is a useful consideration, but I think it is a necessary one. If one’s only source of evidence of psychic ability is the alleged experiences of supposed psychics then one must pay careful attention to determining the reliability of those sources, which is at best a daunting task.
Originally posted by citizen:
Though I make one addendum.
Can you not see that your perspective is as biased as anyone elses here?
And that sweeping statements that imply, though I recognise you haven't outright said it, that some professed Psychics are charlatans therefore most/all are, are not useful to the discussion?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, September 26, 2005 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
If I accept that you can hold your personal experiences as evidence, for which you have no corroboration and no one is allowed to criticize, then you have me at a disadvantage, do you not?
Criticism is fine Finn. I don't want to be called a liar, remember you have no evidence on which to base that, either. Far from expecting you to take my personal experiences as evidence I'm trying to tell you that they are evidence for me. That is where my blind man refrence comes in. I wasn't trying to say you were blind to evidence, or closed minded in anyway, mearly that somethings are impossible to explain without a common frame of refrence, which we do not have.
Quote:
I’m afraid corroborating evidence is needed.
What would you accept as corroborating evidence? I really will do my best to supply it, though without a dedicated scientific study it will be most difficult, I suspect.
Quote:
the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence for psychic phenomenon. ...
but that doesn’t change the fact that extensive studies have failed to produce any conclusive evidence,
I have come across studies that have quite compelling evidence, on tape, for all to see. You keep reiterating that point Finn, but seem unwilling to back it up, which is exactly what your asking of me. You aren't willing to believe what I have to say on my word, which is fair enough, but why should I believe there is no evidence based on your assertion alone?
Simply put there isn't as many studies, and certainly not impartial ones, as you seem to claim.
However, if I'm wrong could you please point me in the direction of these extensive studies?
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:51 AM
Quote:I agree. I don’t know that you can corroborate it. I wish you could. I don’t know of very many people who have claimed to have had what they would describe as psychic experiences, but I know of some who have claimed to have had experiences which they have attributed to god. I’m a very religions man, but I don’t know what to think of that either. I’m pretty sure some of them are making it up, but others might not be. I’ve never had any kind of experiences that I would categorize as supernatural. Some people have suggested to me that my skepticism of their experiences is a result of my envy of them having had such an experiences and me not. They could be right; I don’t know. I don’t psychoanalyze such things. Personally, I think my skepticism stems from a desire to understand it, because you can’t understand something if you don’t question it.
Originally posted by citizen:
What would you accept as corroborating evidence? I really will do my best to supply it, though without a dedicated scientific study it will be most difficult, I suspect.
Quote:There are considerable studies, at least one of which was mentioned in this thread by me. You only have yourself to blame if you believe what I say on my assertion alone. The studies that I’m talking about are documented and declassified, unlike your “personal experiences,” which I fear are difficult for me to look up. Of course I suppose if I had psychic powers I could just read your mind, but I dare say I’m hampered in this capacity.
Originally posted by citizen:
I have come across studies that have quite compelling evidence, on tape, for all to see. You keep reiterating that point Finn, but seem unwilling to back it up, which is exactly what your asking of me. You aren't willing to believe what I have to say on my word, which is fair enough, but why should I believe there is no evidence based on your assertion alone?
Simply put there isn't as many studies, and certainly not impartial ones, as you seem to claim.
This is the one of the more reliable papers on the research of psychic phenomenon, in my opinion. I’ve not read all the papers out there. Nor have I studied any of them extensively. This is the summation report of the decades long SAIC and Stanford Research Institute study lavishly funded by the DIA. This study was ongoing for more then half my natural life. I would call that extensive. This study is actually favorable, not skeptical, of psychic phenomena, yet its conclusions were so lacking in result despite the decades spent studying this subject that this paper actually resulted in the DIA withdrawing it’s funding from the project.
Journal of Parapsychology:
Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena
Hyman, Ray, Ph.D.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600
“... the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous cognition varies with target entropy and the `bandwidth' of the target set. These findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as extroversion, sheep/goats, altered states only to find that later studies could not replicate them.”
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:55 AM
Citizen said:
Quote:
I welcome your perspective, I really do, though I entirely disagree with it. If you check pretty much all my posts, any attack I have made on your position were relating to your defense of CUnKnown.
Perhaps let me know which things I said that need defending? I'm sure people have previously, but I don't know what exactly is on your mind at the moment. I'd like a chance to defend -myself-.
Citizen also said:
Quote:
Criticism is fine Finn. I don't want to be called a liar
Honestly, I wasn't calling anyone a liar, ever. I know perhaps I insulted some people, but I didn't mean to. I'm not taking back anything I said, but please understand that I didn't intend to insult anyone. Hopefully, that will make people feel a little better--I think that maybe our viewpoints are so opposed that it is easy to have misunderstandings.
As far as my science credentials, I never claimed that I was a professor or anything. However, I have been in academia for a while and I know how scientists think, for the most part. I've taken Philosophy of Science classes, and I have a Master's in Biochemistry. I work as a lab technician at the moment. I think I can speak from the point of view of a typical scientist, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.
If psychic phenomena are brought up in conversation with a typcial scientist in a respected field, he/she will laugh at you. Yes, what I'm saying is that, even a priori, paranormal phenomena including psychics, ghosts, UFO's, etc. are completely dismissed by the vast majority of scientists in standard, "respectable" fields. Certainly scientists who actually study something like psychic phenomena will not be considered "respectable" or hardly even "real" scientists.
There are reasons for that. Psychic believers may say the reason is something like "scientists are close-minded!", and that would indeed be true for many scientists, regarding these sorts of things. But, even more open minded scientists like myself (hehe, yes, I am comparatively open minded, I know you don't believe that) will mostly discount stories of psychic abilities like those in the other thread. Why?
To have a real discussion, everyone should try to understand the other side, at least a little. So, here is the other side, please try to read on with as little rage as possible! Have a beer.
Why do even semi-open-minded scientists discount psychic phenomena that seem so real to those involved?
1) It's not because we feel scared/threated for ourselves, or for our system of thought (i.e. science). Most of science exists as fact for scientists. Call it the New Religion, call it blind faith, whatever. The point is that scientists have near 100% confidence in their system of thought/belief structure/whatever. Nothing can threaten it, at least that's what we believe. I am actually very borderline in my belief of science compared to some--I don't think that it will ever be able to fully understand many things, including the human mind.
1a) If scientists have 100% confidence in science, that's because it has been freaking reinforced over and over and over again over the past 200 years. People talk about holes in scientific thought, they talk about "oh, last century, scientists thought this, now they think the other--look how inconsistent it is!" These people don't understand how amazing the last century has been for science--how fields that seemed completely separate have come together, how fields that were fighting in the early 1900's, have come together to form a structure that is so strong that nothing can break it. If we think we've found truth, it's basically because, in many cases, we have.
***please do not be insulted by #2, I am only trying to bring the perspective of the typcial scientist into the discussion. No disrespect is meant, even though I do happen to agree with the following:
2) Why do scientists disbelieve psychic and other paranormal phenomena before even seeing the evidence (if there is any)?
Because these phenome
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:34 AM
I Apologise for a long post:
Finn:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There are considerable studies, at least one of which was mentioned in this thread by me. You only have yourself to blame if you believe what I say on my assertion alone.
Yep, that particular paragraph was very strongly baiting (mine not yours)...
I don't recall a particular study being referenced by you. The only links on the subject I remember seeing were Ruxtons from another thread Re. remote viewing. If I missed anything I apologise.
Thanks for the link, I haven’t the time to read it right now but it'll be the first thing on my list tonight.
CUnknown:
Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Perhaps let me know which things I said that need defending? I'm sure people have previously, but I don't know what exactly is on your mind at the moment. I'd like a chance to defend -myself-.
It was Finn's assertion you didn't insult anyone. Specifically the comments that seemed to indicate those who professed to experiencing these things were Hoaxers, or irrational. I believe we've all now made our thoughts on that matter clear, and you yourself further on in your post clarify your intent. To my mind no further defence is needed.
Quote:
As far as my science credentials, I never claimed that I was a professor or anything. However, I have been in academia for a while and I know how scientists think, for the most part. I've taken Philosophy of Science classes, and I have a Master's in Biochemistry. I work as a lab technician at the moment. I think I can speak from the point of view of a typical scientist, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.
I myself hold a BSc in Computer Science, so would like to think of myself as at least understanding the scientific method, and having somewhat of an analytical mind.
Quote:
If psychic phenomena are brought up in conversation with a typical scientist in a respected field, he/she will laugh at you. Yes, what I'm saying is that, even a priori, paranormal phenomena including psychics, ghosts, UFO's, etc. are completely dismissed by the vast majority of scientists in standard, "respectable" fields. Certainly scientists who actually study something like psychic phenomena will not be considered "respectable" or hardly even "real" scientists.
We (were) talking more precisely about Psychic Phenomena. Psychic phenomena exclude paranormal phenomena such as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), reincarnation, spirits, ghosts, and a broad range of experiences that are more in the category of belief systems rather than mental experiences.
The rest of that paragraph seems to support the view that scientists are afraid of psychic phenomena, however. Let me clarify, you say 'respected' scientists in 'respected' fields don't believe in psychic phenomena. You go onto say that scientists who study psychic phenomena are not considered "respectable" or hardly even "real" scientists.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a particularly good reason to be afraid of studying psychic phenomena, wouldn't it? Having your career and reputation pretty much destroyed, I mean?
Quote:
To have a real discussion, everyone should try to understand the other side, at least a little. So, here is the other side, please try to read on with as little rage as possible! Have a beer.
I indeed asked you to clarify your logical position. I am neither in a rage nor require a beer, but thanks anyway, I'll have a Kronenbourg
Quote:
Why do even semi-open-minded scientists discount psychic phenomena that seem so real to those involved?
Not all do...
We now know that what has been known as psychic phenomena and the religion of Spiritualism is in fact a branch of physics that should be called "subatomic phenomena". The first principal of Birmingham University, Sir Oliver Lodge15, said to the outstanding medium Bertha Harris, "Cut out the Spiritualist jargon." He then published his paper 'The Mode of Future Existence' linking the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:38 PM
Quote:I didn't reference anything; I just mentioned it.
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't recall a particular study being referenced by you. The only links on the subject I remember seeing were Ruxtons from another thread Re. remote viewing. If I missed anything I apologise.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME