Psychic Phenomena as Science : Othor Games

» Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:58 pm

I actually found something quite interesting in that article, which I would like to share.

Page 493

"We acknowledge that “no positive theory” yet
exists to explain psi, but our article was neither a theoretical
exercise nor a comparison of psi theories (for which there are
many; see Stokes, 1987). We took a purely empirical approach by
presenting an update. We believe that we confirmed that psi effects
can be found in a larger data set where any given single study on
its own may be inconclusive. Our action is no less inappropriate
than Galileo’s demonstration of gravitational effects in pre-
Newtonian times without it being necessary for Galileo to have a
“positive theory” that describes why such effects should exist"

Very fascinating, how they can both admit that there is no unified theory regarding the concept that they believe they have established does indeed exist, AND claim that it is indeed one single concept. If there is no unified theory regarding what these anomalies (as they themselves put it) are, then how can they be so certain that the anomalies from the various studies are all manifestations of the same thing?

A more fitting anology would be if Galileo had said that the force that draws an object towards the earth and the force that draws two magnetic objects toward eachother were the same thing, and he called it "Magic". We all know those things are two different concepts, and any thesis that is based on the notion that there is only one single reason why one object would be drawn to another object is completely wrong.

The parapsychologists are under no illusions that they have the answers. They do not know if it is indeed the same force, or two different forces. They don't know whether to name it one thing, or name two things two things, or to name a hundred things a hundred different things. But since our current models can't explain it, they call it "psi".

So, again, above the board. They aren't claiming it's "magic." They aren't claiming it's "metaphysical." They can't saying it can't be some "physical process." Despite what skeptics would like them to be saying

(as it turns out, I'm waiting on a friend before I go out to eat, so I'll stick around for a couple more minutes)

Which brings me back to: if you want people to read a single article in depth and offer comments and criticism, you're in the wrong place. Or at the very least you labelled this thread wrong.

Let's be honest: if I labeled this thread "come in here and read about a science report!", do you think we'd have even half the responses?

» Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:30 am

The parapsychologists are under no illusions that they have the answers. They do not know if it is indeed the same force, or two different forces. They don't know whether to name it one thing, or name two things two things, or to name a hundred things a hundred different things. But since our current models can't explain it, they call it "psi".

A tad unfair, wouldn't you say, to make up one single unified term for any number of different deviations from the statistical trends?

That's not scientific, making up a term and using it for all manner of unexplained factors is the opposite of scientific. Science is about finding an explanation, and you can't really do that if you pretend like many different things are in fact one single thing.

Magnetism and gravity are not the same, so it wouldn't make sense to call them "Magic".

So, again, above the board. They aren't claiming it's "magic." They aren't claiming it's "metaphysical." They can't saying it can't be some "physical process." Despite what skeptics would like them to be saying

Having one unified term for many unexplained factors is not scientific, it's humbug.

Let's be honest: if I labeled this thread "come in here and read about a science report!", do you think we'd have even half the responses?

So you were baiting? I'm pretty sure there's an obscure rule against doing that, somewhere.

» Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:05 pm

Let's be honest: if I labeled this thread "come in here and read about a science report!", do you think we'd have even half the responses?

Probably not, but since you didn't label it that you can't complain that people aren't doing it...

Anyway, I got drawn into actually reading it (I hate when that happens) so assuming I get to the end I'll let you know what I think...

» Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:24 pm

A tad unfair, wouldn't you say, to make up one single unified term for any number of different deviations from the statistical trends?

That's not scientific, making up a term and using it for all manner of unexplained factors is the opposite of scientific. Science is about finding an explanation, and you can't really do that if you pretend like many different things are in fact one single thing.

Magnetism and gravity are not the same, so it wouldn't make sense to call them "Magic".

They don't know that it's the same, but they don't know that it's different.

Rather than calling results from one experiment "Psi_1", and calling results from another "Psi_2", they call "whatever is happening which results in the data we get" "psi".

Regardless, it's a matter of semantics. Not a matter of data. When they are able to distinguish what causes what effects (which they cannot do as of yet), they shall no doubt categorize each appropriately.

Having one unified term for many unexplained factors is not scientific, it's humbug.

They don't even really (to my knowledge), have a theory (they have a lot of people putting forward a lot of their ideas which they hope will turn into a theory that will be popularly accepted). They just call "whatever factor (my note: maybe even factors!) which accounts for these deviations which are beyond chance" "psi".

Again: when discoveries are made for what mechanism is causing it, it shall no doubt be appropriately categorized and separated out.

So you were baiting? I'm pretty sure there's an obscure rule against doing that, somewhere.

No. I was advertising.

"Clairvoyance" and "psychokinesis" have been categorized by many under "psychic powers." It is these affects which have been tested scientifically. And under those scientific tests, results beyond normal probability were found. But researchers weren't going to explain it by appearing to "magic", "psychic powers", or some other "metaphysics". They just labeled it psi.

But since, in terms of popular culture, people tend to understand "psychic phenomena" better than "X factor used to explain results beyond normal probability labeled psi", I went with a title people would recognize.

And on that note, I will be off to dinner now. Be back later to discuss!

» Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:34 pm

No, I'm saying there's different degrees of having "read up" on things and expecting people to go through reference lists with a fine-toothed comb is ridiculous in this context. We can only go on what experience has offered us so far, and in my experience, believers in psi are already convinced of their results before they conduct their experiments. Is that the case here? Maybe, I don't know, I haven't read the article you linked to and I don't intend to because I don't want to spend my time doing that. Which means I can't offer any perspective on this particular piece of research and I'm not going to pretend I can, all I can do is comment on psi research as a whole. Which is what I've done.

Which brings me back to: if you want people to read a single article in depth and offer comments and criticism, you're in the wrong place. Or at the very least you labelled this thread wrong.

ATS would have been better.... Just avoid the AIDS Cure threads...Those involve holding an electrostimulator and drinking colloidal silver.

» Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:35 am

This thread is filled with flames and smoking. Time to just end it and allow you folks to cool off for a day or so.