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 10 of 11

CUNKNOWN

Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:11 AM

Citizen said:

Quote:
...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?

Remember, this would be like saying that scientists are scared of studying the 10,000 monkeys that flew out of my ass because their career might suffer. Now, their career would definitely suffer if they quit their real work and starting detailing the habits of imaginary ass monkeys. But it doesn't mean they're scared to do it. Well maybe a little scared just because it was -my- ass. Let's say it was Jessica Alba's ass. The point is that scientists are laughing about psychic abilities if they mention them at all.

Quote:
Evidently psychic phenomena is almost a taboo subject ...

The same idea above applies to this. It's not that it's a taboo subject, it's that its a joke.

Quote:
These fields form a structure so strong that nothing can break them YET.
As for inconsistent, no. What is accepted scientific theory today will be replaced tomorrow.

No, I think this is mostly wrong. Take for example Darwin's theory of natural selection which will never be "replaced" by anything. Other scientists may add to his work, but an anti-Darwin revolution in the field of evolution is impossible.

Quote:
Newton’s theories of motion stood for hundreds of years before Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, simply because it did such a good job of explaining observable phenomena.

Einstein did not "replace" Newton's theories. It's not like they don't teach Newton anymore, or that Newton's theories aren't useful anymore. I believe Newton's Laws of Motion are still as valid now as they ever were.

Quote:
Am I an irrational person because I believe my own experiences over doctrine?

No, you're being irrational because you believe your own experience over what your reason tells you is true. Your experience can easily decieve you--there can't be any argument on that point (e.g. optical illusions, memory degradation, hallucinations, etc.).

HKCavilier: Finn's depiction of your post is pretty much on-target. You're resorting to flowery nonsense because you don't have an argument.

Ruxton said:

Quote:
is that you can't "publish" if your conclusions go against the establishment, which CANNOT have its base of operations THREATENED in any way. ... If something goes against the FUNDERS of scientific inquiry, it ain't going to get published.

This isn't true, right? Apparently there are actual journals of psychic research, so the work is in fact being published.

Quote:
Prime example: free energy.

Of what, your lack of science education?

Quote:
One pities the hide-bound limitiations of those who cannot SEE, in the full sense of the word.

But how much more do you pity people who think they see things that aren't real? Especially people who should know better (like intellegent Firefly fans).

Citizen said:

Quote:
All the arguments levied upon those who profess to have had scientific expereinces can be turned around. Scientists say:
"Prove you did it, or we'll assume its coincidence/your nuts/lying etc..."
Well prove I'm nuts, prove I'm lying, prove its coincidence...

Sure it can be turned around, but the burden of proof is on the people making the claims, not the other way around. Especially if these claims are fantasical/implausible.

Ruxton said:

Quote:
... the current U.S. administration is a lying bunch of crooks worthy of tar and feathers, not respect. (Anyone else notice the similarities between this discussion and political discussions as to who takes which "side"?)

I don't notice any such similarity. I am a hard-core liberal, I didn't vote for Kerry because he's not liberal enough for me. I voted for Nader, thank you very much. If there's something we can agree on, I think it's our hatred of the Bush administration.

CITIZEN

Friday, September 30, 2005 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Remember, this would be like saying that scientists are scared of studying the 10,000 monkeys that flew out of my ass because their career might suffer. Now, their career would definitely suffer if they quit their real work and starting detailing the habits of imaginary ass monkeys. But it doesn't mean they're scared to do it. Well maybe a little scared just because it was -my- ass. Let's say it was Jessica Alba's ass. The point is that scientists are laughing about psychic abilities if they mention them at all...
The same idea above applies to this. It's not that it's a taboo subject, it's that its a joke.

Firstly your monkey analogy is completely fallacious and draws no parallels what so ever.
Why, well all we need to do to prove the existence of your ass monkeys is to look at them, or not, as the case may be.
We can both come up with ridiculous analogies.
Of course scientists are superhuman, not open to those human failings such as irrational emotion, incapable of fear. Incapable of irrationality and always objective, even in the face of things that will change their world view. That fits the evidence, right?

Quote:
Dean Radin, PhD.:
In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In stage 1, sceptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last for years or for centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In stage 2, sceptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible but that it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no on remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

I'm not holding the above passage up as proof of psychic phenomena btw. I am hoping that you'll open your mind to the possibility and read up a bit on the subject before automatically refuting it as a joke as a knee jerk reaction to your pre-programmed prejudices.
And Science does make knee jerk reactions:

Quote:
Few examples are more striking than this one. For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists. Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HKCAVALIER

Friday, September 30, 2005 2:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
This is some hokey stuff, man. I wonder how common it is for supposed psychics to view themselves as having a superior perspective on the world. A person who believes that they are ‘all knowing and all seeing’ may be inclined to view a purely chance event as validation of their self-described omnipotence.

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
HKCavilier: Finn's depiction of your post is pretty much on-target. You're resorting to flowery nonsense because you don't have an argument.

Hrmmm. Well. Fellas, we all could have just given up on the communication thing here and called it quits long ago. I appreciate you're continued commitment to the discussion.

Finn, despite my all knowing all seeing nature, I'm stumped as to how you reached the conclusion from my post that I was claiming omnipotence (hopefully you don't agree with yourself completely). I see a larger world than you do. I can say that because I see all the things science has shown us plus a whole bunch of other stuff that you don't believe in but I've seen. Science has not adequately disproven the things I have seen innumerable times with my own eyes; things others have seen, sometimes simultaneously; things of which I've read corroborating accounts in books many, many times. I don't disregard the scientific establishment, but I don't run my life by its limited vision. How we get from my having a larger view of reality than you, to my being omnipotent I hope was just you trying to be funny.

So I'm confused, but CUnknown thinks you're "on-target." It occurs to me, finally, that you may think I'm an irrational egomaniac posting whatever lunacy comes into my head. LOL Well, sometimes, I'm a little slow. LOL Now that I think of it, it's pretty obvious.

Hey, CU, is there still no insulting goin' on at your end? I'm just curious. LOL

I'm reminded of that old 80's show Beauty and the Beast. Here was this half man/half lion who's amazing super powers amount to--drum roll, please--empathy. Vincent feels her pain! LOL That show was such a surreal experience for me because this guy was doing what I totally took for granted. It's like watching a show with a super hero who can walk through doors! See through windows! Penetrate the mysteries of conversation!

The thing is, either of you could see this world I see if you wanted. Ruxton is right. Do some meditating (at least a year's worth, doesn't have to be every day, but at least a half hour 5 days a week); go live in the wild for a year or two. What these things do is open you to what the world has to say for itself. You'll begin dealing with the world on the world's terms. You'll begin to see the cracks in your certainty and start to understand your deeper intuitive selves. This is very simple shit, guys, sorry if it sounds like omnipotence to you.

Logic and reason and science have become like the walls around the world for you; they create a controlled environment, where intuition is unneeded and gets lost. Radio waves, certain electromagnetic frequencies absolutely destroy psychic awareness. And we're surrounded by them in the human world.

Then how come science hasn't proven any of this? Because the science you're talking about, the science of the last 100 years or so, is very very young and men who move out to the wild for years at a time or meditate every day lose interest in your kind of science. Well, they do. 'Cause they realize that mainstream science don't know jack about half of anything and they find much better things to do with their time! LOL Or they don't and go back into the lab to do all kinds of experiments and get published and laughed at--whoopee!

http://www.sheldrake.org
http://www.jeffreymasson.com

Here's a thing. I take care of people's pets from time to time (house sitting, pet sitting) and the pets' owners are always full of information about their pets' idiosyncrasies and temperaments and bad habits. When I co

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, September 30, 2005 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As for scientist not being afraid of these subjects:
. . .
Seems there’s a lot to be afraid of if you don’t tow the line…

I don’t think these are examples of science being afraid of a subject, but rather examples of science mired in ideology. Unfortunately, while some scientists will often view science as an infallibly rational methodology, it can be and is subject to political and ideological pressures, often to the determent of scientific study. But this only further warrants the need for rational analysis and careful labeling of the confidence of information.

Science isn’t afraid to study new or untested ideas. The very existence of parapsychology should be enough to assert this, and we should give credit where credit is due. But Citizen makes some good points. There is inertia to science that can sometimes make it cumbersome and slow to accept new ideas, especially when there are political pressures to maintaining certain points of view. The theory of Evolution is a good example of this. While there are many facets of Evolution theory that is well founded the basic premise that new lifeforms emerge from old lifeforms has never been demonstrated and remains a speculative proposition. The idea that the theory of Evolution will never be replaced is shortsighted given the fact that the principle concept of this theory is not only unfounded, but entirely untestable, since it is unlikely that any human will live long enough to view a complex new lifeform supposedly emerging in the way that the Evolution theorizes.

Citizen also points out several good examples of the cracks in Evolution’s somewhat gilded façade. Yet at every corner I hear people, sometimes even other scientists, insisting that Evolution is essentially a fact, despite the questions and the flimsy foundation of Evolution’s larger premise. Evolution isn’t the only area where scientists often jump to conclusions without adequate support, often following a supposed “consensus” or ideology.

Science is not a perfect tool, because it is a tool used and created by imperfect beings. Science should never seek to dismiss novel and untested ideas, but it should always strive to label the concepts it uses with rational, unbiased and appropriate degrees of confidence. And this must be the case, not only for the untried ideas, but also and perhaps even more importantly, the mainstreams ideas as well.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, September 30, 2005 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Finn, despite my all knowing all seeing nature, I'm stumped as to how you reached the conclusion from my post that I was claiming omnipotence (hopefully you don't agree with yourself completely). I see a larger world than you do. I can say that because I see all the things science has shown us plus a whole bunch of other stuff that you don't believe in but I've seen. Science has not adequately disproven the things I have seen innumerable times with my own eyes; things others have seen, sometimes simultaneously; things of which I've read corroborating accounts in books many, many times. I don't disregard the scientific establishment, but I don't run my life by its limited vision. How we get from my having a larger view of reality than you, to my being omnipotent I hope was just you trying to be funny.

Well there was a twinge of humor. I’ll admit after reading your post I was reminded of Inignot, the Mooninite. But there was also a serious question. I don’t doubt that you believe that you have some privileged world insight or that you think I’m some kind of dimwit for demanding evidence; I’m just not very confident that your supposed privileged depth of vision is necessarily real. And I think your post raises a valid question: a person who believes they “see a larger world” then everyone else may be inclined to view entirely coincidental events as justification for this supposed omnipotence. Sort of the chicken and the egg kind of thing. Is your claim that you can “see a larger world” a product of actually have seen said larger world or instead is your interpretation of coincidental events a product of believing you “see a larger world.”

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Finn, do you think animals are capable of reasoning? I would really like to know your thoughts on this simple question.

I don’t doubt that some animals are capable of some degree of reasoning.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
It's things like that you and others so easily dismiss. I wonder why. There is no coincidence to them.

There’s no evidence either.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, September 30, 2005 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t doubt that you believe that you have some privileged world insight or that you think I’m some kind of dimwit for demanding evidence; I’m just not very confident that your supposed privileged depth of vision is necessarily real.

Why should you be? Our perception is only as good as the last time we were wrong and had to adjust. Back in kung fu class, my instructor used to talk about a man on a tight rope. To the observer, the man is maintaining his balance, but to the tight rope walker balance is defined by his constant awareness of his tendency to lose his balance.

Quote:
And I think your post raises a valid question: a person who believes they “see a larger world” then everyone else may be inclined to view entirely coincidental events as justification for this supposed omnipotence.

Now, now, don't marginalize my point of view more than it already is. A man thinks he knows better than "everyone else" is a monster of self-deceit. There are a whole lot of people who see as much of the world as me and more--just check out the thread that spawned this one!

You and CUnknown have repeatedly gotten the wrong idea about where I get validation for my views. You seem to think that merely including my own intuitive faculty (tested almost daily, btw) invalidates my perception. For the record, my views are a synthesis of various sources, including (but not necessarily limited to) my intuition and "guides," friends, fellow psychics, books, the news paper, even some scientists. Your chicken/egg duality only works if I have no point of reference beyond my whimsical brain-pan. But I do.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Friday, September 30, 2005 9:38 PM

HK, if you really are omnipotent like Finn says, could you please change reality so that Firefly was never canceled?

And make Rue the president?

Chrisisall, who bows to the Omnipotent One

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 1, 2005 10:43 AM

The doctor said I was omnipotent once, but I think he got the tests mixed up because I have no problems in that particular area thank you very much!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 2, 2005 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Why should you be? Our perception is only as good as the last time we were wrong and had to adjust. Back in kung fu class, my instructor used to talk about a man on a tight rope. To the observer, the man is maintaining his balance, but to the tight rope walker balance is defined by his constant awareness of his tendency to lose his balance.

It’s interesting that you say that. When was the last time you were wrong? It seems to me that one of the problems with the whole psychic ability stuff is that it is essentially infallible. There does not seem to be any impartial criteria by which you could ever define when you are wrong. As such the tendency is towards absolute belief in the righteousness of the “viewer.” In other words, omniscience. (I said omnipotence earlier but that was a mistake; I typed one thing and thought something else.) What is your criterion for determining when you are wrong? Or do you just think that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and if so how so you know you’re not wrong about that?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Now, now, don't marginalize my point of view more than it already is. A man thinks he knows better than "everyone else" is a monster of self-deceit. There are a whole lot of people who see as much of the world as me and more--just check out the thread that spawned this one!

Another thread of unsubstantiated “experiences,” none of which demonstrates that any of these people see any further then their own ideologies, imagination or personal beliefs with regard to psychic ability.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You and CUnknown have repeatedly gotten the wrong idea about where I get validation for my views. You seem to think that merely including my own intuitive faculty (tested almost daily, btw) invalidates my perception. For the record, my views are a synthesis of various sources, including (but not necessarily limited to) my intuition and "guides," friends, fellow psychics, books, the news paper, even some scientists. Your chicken/egg duality only works if I have no point of reference beyond my whimsical brain-pan. But I do.

And how do you know that? Regardless of what you may think, none of your sources necessarily constitute any degree of validation. I would argue that the chicken and the egg analogy is spot on. How do you know that your perception of the world isn’t due completely to your own misguided interpretations of purely coincidental events?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, August 25, 2006 8:20 PM

Hey everybody, with the recent upsurge in metaphysical debate and the usual Theism=Christianity/Atheist=non-spiritual polarization, I thought it might be a good time to bump one or two of the old threads about psychic phenomena to mix things up a bit.

I found this old post by Finn mac Cumhal which I actually never read and so never responded to. So, it's been nearly a year, I don't expect Finn to answer necessarily at all, but I will answer it now in the hopes that it may revive the conversation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Our perception is only as good as the last time we were wrong and had to adjust. Back in kung fu class, my instructor used to talk about a man on a tight rope. To the observer, the man is maintaining his balance, but to the tight rope walker balance is defined by his constant awareness of his tendency to lose his balance.
It’s interesting that you say that. When was the last time you were wrong? It seems to me that one of the problems with the whole psychic ability stuff is that it is essentially infallible. There does not seem to be any impartial criteria by which you could ever define when you are wrong. As such the tendency is towards absolute belief in the righteousness of the “viewer.” In other words, omniscience. What is your criterion for determining when you are wrong? Or do you just think that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and if so how so you know you’re not wrong about that?

It seems to me, Finn, that you're expecting a level of certainty from psychic perception that goes beyond mear sensory experience. When was the last time you misheard what someone said? Or thought you saw someone you knew only to find out as you got closer that they were a stranger? Do these occurances invalidate the sense involved? Of course not. Are they purely coincidental? Prolly not; perhaps you were expecting an answer other than what you heard or perhaps you wanted to see the person you thought you saw, so your mind took the data supplied by your eyes and jumped to conclusions.

No sense is perfect, all have limits. It's just that the limits of psychic awareness are in a realm someone in your position doesn't see or credit as existing.

Beyond that, there is the issue of will. I'm becoming more and more aware of the ways in which will interferes with psychic awareness. Desire, belief and intention are all aspects of our will that can get in the way of psychic perception. The human mind, unlike that of most animals, is what I'd call "fantasy-ridden;" our strongly held beliefs and strongest desires can knock out all manner of sensory data. People tend to hear what they want to hear, y'know?

So the task of a psychic is complicated not only by their own desires, but the desire of the querent who seeks them out. Most psychics do a good deal of meditating to help quiet the mind and take stock of the many desires and fears that swarm across the mind-scape. When I'm in a good frame of mind to do a reading, the information tends to appear in my mind in a profoundly neutral way. It just kinda shows up without any warning. Usually I have no idea if what I'm telling someone is true until they confirm it. It can be pretty nerve-wracking, actually. I have learned to trust the process, so the level of anxiety it creates in me has diminished over the years--it's gotten to the point that I can often recognize the "angle" at which these psychic impressions come into my mind and recognize them as something other than my own "imagination."

This also accounts for why it is so difficult for psychics to read for themselves most of the time, and why psychics don't all head out to Vegas and make their fortunes. It's very hard not to stop the constant flow of hopes and fears we have for ourselves.

But to answer your question, here's an example off the top of my head. My girlfriend, Mary, is a massage therapist. There was a new woman hired at her spa. She had a bad feeling