Scientific evidence for psychic phenomena

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 17:35
VIEWED: 4039
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

CITIZEN

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:07 PM

Quote:
My point is that there have been fitful steps towards suggesting that somehow there might be some quantifiable of connection between the physical process of cognition and some of the various assertions of parapsychology. How far those steps go is dependent on how many of the studies you think are valid. I'm inclined to think that very, very few are.

There's a great deal of studies that are very vigorous, and hold up to sceptics, who necessarily want to rip them apart.

I think it's also telling that particle physics considers a particle's existence proved is 3 tests out of 200,000 are successes, where the majority of sceptics dismiss successful studies because, well, they can't be psi, can they...

Not an attack on you, btw, just an observation of 'professional' sceptics...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

EYETOOTH

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:21 PM

There's more to proving a particle's existence beyond reasonable doubt than the simple quantity of successful tests would imply, though I can certainly agree with the spirit of your example. There is indeed a good deal of psychic-bashing to be found amongst professional sceptics, but that makes for easier (and much more glamourous) work than peer-spelunking the labrynths of esoterica that are modern hard science studies.

LIMINALOSITY

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
but science =/= religion.

Your objection strikes me as sophistic - detaching yourself from an expected outcome as much as possible is the very notion of science. Nobody is going to be freed of prejudice, because nobody is God.

I like your equation, where / = the photon's choice of doorway, but I am not fluent in math, and don't have a Babelfish. Is this mixed metaphor math(+webspeak)? Is / the impenetrable wall of 3rd dimensional voodoo? I'm not only teasing you, please explain.

Sophist, eh? I haven't made you angry, have I, Obi Wan? Of course people who choose to work in research would need to apply effort to removing the subjective from their research to protect the results, or the research is worthless. Removing one's expectation of and attachment to outcome is a noble effort, and very difficult ground on which to maintain one's balance as human beings. As the citizen says, it takes lots of experimentation to prove or disprove a thing. That's comforting, as there's plenty mojo wrapped up in being right, especially when there's grant money and publishing clout wrapped in the package.

Finally, I think some things are very hard to prove/disprove, and anything relating to the workings of the mind is a particularly slippery subject. I'm glad to hear about another of the 10,000 necessary experiments.

EYETOOTH

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:37 AM

It's "does not equal". Normally it's just an equal sign with a slash through it. I suspect you already knew this...

Focusing on publishing clout and grant lawyers, guns and money and false tracheal/ocular omniscience and all the silly crap that is part and parcel to science and everything else in the universe again misses the point, lest your point is to be a postmod satyr heckling from the wood. Sanity may be devilishly hard to maintain as a true scientist, as the joys and unitiy of mystical Truth are willfuly kissed goodbye, but for some people that's just their path. Science too has its own joys, distant and barren though they are.

LIMINALOSITY

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
It's "does not equal". Normally it's just an equal sign with a slash through it. I suspect you already knew this...

Focusing on publishing clout and grant lawyers, guns and money and false tracheal/ocular omniscience and all the silly crap that is part and parcel to science and everything else in the universe again misses the point, lest your point is to be a postmod satyr heckling from the wood. Sanity may be devilishly hard to maintain as a true scientist, as the joys and unitiy of mystical Truth are willfuly kissed goodbye, but for some people that's just their path. Science too has its own joys, distant and barren though they are.

I just didn't recognise your gliph =/=
Dang, you -do- think I'm heckling you. Not heckling, really. Silly keeps me sane, sorry if I yanked your chain.

Let me try to restate what I meant about objectivity. It takes a willingness to submerge the ego, which requires a good deal of will and strong belief in one's reasons for it to happen at all. It's a difficult state to maintain, but from the reasearch driven friends I have, I hear that what happens for them is similar to what happens for me when I'm creating something: the world floats away, and there's only me inside the work that's happening. I have hung out in labs, and I've watched them float away. I don't find that a distant and barren place at all, however one manages to access it.

Publishers and funding agencies, or publishers and gallery owners, it's the same crappy game of politics, and it's hard not to morph into a politician when you're playing at politics. To paraphrase a line above- 90% of everything is crap. It's hard work strive for the illusive 10%.

I hope I have achieved clarity?

[insert Sheldrake quote guaranteed to annoy]

Really, no, not shooting at you from the safety of a pixelated wood.

CALHOUN

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:21 PM

David Copperfield can make the space shuttle disappear! How much more evidence do you need?

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
David Copperfield can make the space shuttle disappear! How much more evidence do you need?

*Wonders what your point actually is*

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

PREV PAGE 1 2