I share your disdain for psychology and sociology when compared to “hard” sciences like mathematics or physics. But that doesn’t mean it can’t teach us useful information about human behavior. Madison Avenue is a big user of pschology, albeit with mixed results. But they keep trying!
Which is why we have peer review and attempt to replicate experiments. Science may not be perfect, but it has a self-correcting mechanism built in. It would be a travesty of science to believe any new discovery as law until it has been repeated and verified by many different methods and people.
What do cats have to do with this discussion or me?
“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” Blind belief may be comforting, but it is not the road to knowledge.
Subjective human experience is a very poor tool to find out the truth.
No problem, if you find it comforting. But the likelyhood that it is more than a mental experience is not high.
Current scientific investigations suggest that chemical and electrical influences introduced into the brain can simulate “paranormal” experiences that seem as real as can be. Does this mean that your encounter with deceased Aunt Agnes is not real? No, but there simply is no good evidence that dead persons can communicate with anyone.
While your belief in such an encounter may be harmless, such beliefs are often used by charlatans to bilk beople of their money, and there is considerable harm done that way. If you believe Aunt Agnes wants to talk to you, it’s not a great leap for a medium to handle the conversation for money. Let’s hope you are not one of those poor souls.
Aye, there’s the rub. When parapsychology uses standard scientific tools without getting the desired results, rather than concluding there is no there there, they complain that the tools need to be replaced with something which supports their premise.
The issue is that no one will seriously FUND a full out scientific investigation into paranormal phenomena. It isn’t a good investment. Let us suppose someone thinks their home is haunted since doors often open and close by themselves, with no apparent tampering. To get a good sample, you would need to keep full, 24 hr surveilance on both sides of the door for at least several months, if not a year. In addition, one would need to establish enough controls on the home to ensure a lack of hoaxing. If you DO prove that the door opens by itself, you just proved that occasionally, for a reason we currently do not understand, doors open by themselves. It isn’t applicable science. After all that money and time all you proved is that the phenomena actually occurs, without even delving into the how and why. Consider that if it operates by a mechanism of energy and physics that we currently do not have equipment to measure it with, we may NOT be aware of the phenomena if it is sufficently rare.
In the summer of my twenty-fourth year, I inserted a 16-pound Brunswick bowling ball fully into my rectum and bounced to the summit of Annapurna on a pogo stick.
To my knowledge, no other soul had successfully performed this feat before, nor has anyone since. Sadly, I have no photographic or videographic proof and there were no witnesses (my Sherpa guide Muktu had a sudden, unexplained change of heart after he walked in on me during the act of ball insertion in my tent at base camp; I presumed that I had quite inadvertently violated some esoteric Nepalese cultural more, which I ascribe to my youthful carelessness and lack of research).
In the years since, I’ve found that my claim often meets with reactions ranging from cautious suspicion to vocal, occasionally hostile disbelief— being that it makes absolutely no sense, it sounds physically impossible, and I have no proof whatsoever that it happened. To all the naysayers, I simply cry: “prove me wrong!”
My heart is lifted when I encounter kindred spirits like pbbth who realize that not everything that looks, smells, and tastes like bullshit is bullshit— those on whom I can count to grant my superhuman boast the credulity it deserves.
I’m so grateful, in fact, that I will give you a 15% discount on my (ghostwritten) memoir of the expedition… if you act quickly. (Quantities are currently unlimited.)
I was raised as a Born Again Christian, so I know all about the comfort of Blind Faith. However, I disagree with your definition of Faith. Faith is merely the foundation on which you build your subjective universe. For example, I believe in science because I have faith in science. If the Rapture happens tomorrow, I’ll…well, I’d throw one hell of a party. But it sure would shake the faith of every scientist, wouldn’t it??
You’ll get no argument from me that the whole psychic industry is filled will crackpots & con artists. However…some people need to believe in something beyond science. That’s why 96% still believe in God (despite vast evidence to the contrary) and why some people are willing to pay a psychic to tell them “Aunt Agnes” is still out there, somewhere, and still loves her family. And there are some psychics who recognize that emotional need as more important than making a profit. It’s just hard to find them these days.
(FYI, my own “Aunt Agnes” experience was private, no money was involved. And I’m not 100% convinced that it was really her, although it’s the best explanation I have right now. Guess I’ll find out the truth after I die.)
My faith definition was a flip def, not a serious one. But if you believe in science for the same reason you believe in a religious concept, we may have a problem. Religious faith is just that, faith. It is backed by nothing. If I asked you to prove that Jesus Christ is waiting for you in Heaven, how could you prove it? But if you asked me to prove a well-established scientific fact, I would have a relatively easy time.
I, too have faith in science. But not blind faith. It is faith built upon results, predictions that come true with regularity (eclipses, etc.). Science put men on the Moon. It wasn’t pure, unsubstantiated faith that brought them back.
I might not agree that they “need” to believe, but many certainly want to.
If anyone is tempted to contact Aunt Agnes thru a psychic, tell them to save their money. I can tell you right now that Aunt Agnes loves you, has forgiven you, and is waiting for you with open arms. That’s pretty much all you’re gonna get anyway. How many psychics tell you that Aunt Agnes hates you and still holds a grudge?
While you may be able to tell the difference between parlor game astrology and serious use of a psychic to make life decisions, many people are not so equipped. These are called “suckers”.
I’m willing to bet that you won’t.
I have a much better explanation. First, study the art of cold reading. If you wish to persue your quest for education further, Ian Rowland (who happens to be a SDMB member) has an excellent book, The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading. He says:
I’m not sure this is such a problem. In the example you gave, I’d think some web cams and motion detectors would work fine at determining whether doors open by themselves. Besides, considering the number of people that come out of the woodwork to defend their pet psychic beliefs, why don’t they just pass the hat and fund it themselves?
My sympathies are with the funding agencies. Remember the CIA Stargate fiasco? They spent money (LOTS of money!) investigating remote viewing, something that doesn’t and never has worked. People still make fun of the CIA over that, and rightfully so.
Under most circumstances I would be inclined to agree, but paranormal phenomena is held to a higher standard (unfairly in some cases) than other aberrant phenomena. Even with the most rigorous of testing, there will be a section of the “legitimate” scientific community who will deny your evidence due to the inability to repeat your findings in the lab. Especially if the doors are opening to a hitherto unknown factor. Without extremely rigorous controls the others will simply write it off as a hoax.
As for having a whip-'round her up to gather up funds, again you have the issue of application. Proving that phenomena occurs, is not the same as proving that the supposed mechanism behind them does. Proving doors open doesn’t prove ghosts, it proves that doors open. People by and large only invest in projects that look to have a good chance of providing a direct result; usually one that will make them money in a new industry.
What would be fantastic is if a panel could be set up that would accredit laypersons to conduct these type of investigations. After passing certain exams, and having their findings held to a specific standard, we could begin to gather enough good reports to start forming theory on the paranormal. Current science takes a very arrogant attitude towards our understanding of the universe in general. Just recently a new species of large flying fox bat was found that the scientist investigating said was “impossible”. Cite
It is typical of the attitude towards the unlikely or paranormal. I’m certainly not stating that science should take things on faith, but until a decisive negative can be shown, the best that can truly be stated is : “At this time we cannot prove, nor disprove the phenomena in question. We find it to be extremely unlikely however, and will not spend further time on it unless convincing evidence is brought forth from a reliable source.”
Nowhere in the link you gave is the word “impossible”. A scientist was asked what kind of bat it was, and he said, “I politely told him that there was no such bat. I was wrong.”
No knowing about a rare species is quite different from declaring such a species is “impossible”. Scientists are discovering new variations on known animals frequently, and most will readily admit we have not cataloged all extant species by a large margin.
This doesn’t mean that unicorns or yetis exist, however.
In life, the ghosts were part of the jock crowd. Now, they prefer to avoid any reminders that they can no longer shove eggheads into lockers and close them in.
You are correct. I got my links confused, they used the term “nonexistant”.
Cryptozoology and other paranormal fields are not all about unicorns and yetis, whatever popular culture would like to think. This is exactly the type of attitude that IMHO precludes good scientific investigation. When he said :“I politely told him that there was no such bat.” He dismissed the idea of the creature, and therefore only made the “discovery” by accident. :dubious: This isn’t too far off from what happens to the more reasonable paranormal phenomena. Science rarely does due diligence in investigating the paranormal because they assume they already know all about it and it’s not real.
Just because a ghost isn’t closing and opening a door, doesn’t mean that it’s not happening. I’m sure the people who think their homes are haunted would welcome a good repeatable explanation for their observations that does not assume that they are crazy, or liars. Hell, if it really DOES occur, you would think the physicists would be all over it to explain a random release of kinetic energy without an observable cause.
First of all, I am not wearing a tinfoil hat or buying books about ghostly conspiracies. I understand most of what you hear about these kind of things is, in fact, bullshit. But I am of the opinion that some of it is not, and to lump someone who feels that there are more things out there than have been currently explained scientifically with someone who feels a telepathic connection with Lyndon LaRouche is like grouping an agnostic in with Jack Chick.
If one day someone can come to me and show me something that could explain the paranormal experiences I have had I would be nothing but grateful. Someone who could say, “Hey, you remember that dream your mom had predicting the exact date and time of your brothers death 4 days before it happened? This is why.” or “Hey, you know that dark haired guy you always see smoking a cigarette outside the laundry room at your friends apartment that no one else can see even if they are there and looking for him when you see him, this is what that actually is.” would be welcome and assuming what they told me makes logical sense I would embrace this new information without qualm. But so far no one has been able to do this for me. In fact, most normal scientists don’t give a rat’s ass one way or the other about this kind of thing except to poke fun at it in the hallway at work. Paranormal psychologists are the only ones trying to prove these things one way or the other. Sure, some are using the field to promote their own agenda, but there are some who are truly facinated by the field and want to increase the amount of knowlege and information available about these situations through honest and accurate reporting and research.
And second of all, so far no one here has been able to explain what someone who enters the field of paranormal psychology would study or the research methods they use. Right now we are debating between people who have reason to believe there is more to the universe than we see and people who believe that others who have somewhat odd experiences that can’t be easily explained are misguided. None of this is helping to answer the OP’s question at all, least of all taking pot shots at one another.
I say you just haven’t looked. Ghost tours happen in most major cities including mine. The participants of the tours say they seen, felt, heard, etc., ghosts.
There are thousands of pictures of ghosts. Probably need to go on one and see what happens, it could be fun.
I agree parapsychologists are not scientists right along with pyschologists and psychiatrics. They all are supposed to study the psyche, whatever that is, no one really knows.
Acid Lamp
Let me try to address your points in order. I don’t think the paranormal is held to a more rigorous standard. I do believe it is held to the same standard as any other observable phenomenon, ie it must be observable and repeatable. Many things that can’t take place in a lab are still accepted as factual. Just off the top of my head, I’d say something like the mating practices of whales or some geological processes like continental drift. As far as the need for rigorous controls, yeah, you probably have a point there. Too many people have either pencil-whipped their data or just flat-out lied. The reason many scientists write something offf as a hoax is that un many cases it was a hoax. Also, if the paranormal were shown to exist it would require a huge restructuring of physics, biology, and who knows what else. “Extraordinary claims,” and all of that. Why should the believers be given a pass on controls and repeatability?
As far as the whip-round to fund it, I can’t think it would take that much money. Automate some things and review the data. If you see the door opening mysteriously then investigate. If not, then go on to the next. Videoing a door using automated systems would be extremely cheap. You’d only need some serious money if you found something. Hell, there’s people that do nothing but chase the paranormal around. I’d think they’d be willing to volunteer. For the door experiment, I’d bet you could do the whole thing for less than $10,000.
I disagree that the attitudes of most scientists is “arrogant.” I think it is more like boredom and a serious and well-founded fear that someone is going to waste a lot of their time with something that they (the reporter) was mistaken about or an out-and-out hoax. They’ve seen it before and it has always turned out to be unproven or in some cases just a hoax. The paranormal never shows up in the lab or under adequately controlled conditions. Nobody has gotten so much as a hint of actual paranormal activity so how much more investigating should they do?
I don’t know if the laymen collecting data is good or not. It could work if they could discipline themselves to report what actually happened and not what they thought or imagined or whatever. After all, the paranormal has lots of anecdotal reports already, I’m not sure that more of them would get us anywhere.
Lastly (Sorry to be so long-winded) at the end of your post you mention “until a decisive negative can be shown . . . etc.” We both know this isn’t going to happen. Nor should it be required. The GD forum regularly gets into this one over religion, with the religious demanding that the atheists prove God doesn’t exist while the atheists claim it is impossible to prove a negative and that the religious are the ones making the claim and that the onus of proof is on them. I think this attitude is fair. If someone wants to make a claim they should have something besides their unsupported testimony.
You’re talking about Scientific Method. And, while Scientific Method is a significant part of Science, useful for building stuff like cell phones and nuclear bombs, it is not the “be all, end all” of reality.
Scientific Method boils down to 4 basic steps: (1) Hypothesis. (2) Experiments. (3) Observation. (4) Conclusion. You, like many other deterministic people, appear stuck on the “Conclusion” part. Fair and good. But before Conclusions can be made, somebody has to come up with the Hypothesis part. And people who focus on the Hypothesis part aren’t always treated nicely by society – people like Galileo & Semmelweis were persecuted for being scientists.
Here’s another example: Do you love your wife?
Can you prove you love your wife?
Even if you think you love your wife, how do you know she won’t divorce you in 10 years?
But the real answer is…it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to prove you love your wife, because most people understand what “love” is, and accept it on faith. It’s a matter of commonality. Not that many people experience ghost sightings, so it’s much more challenging to explain it to people who don’t share that experience.
In other words…paranormal events ARE held to a more rigorous standard, whether you say so or not.
Let’s be clear about what psychology is. Psychology is “the scientific study of the nature, functioning, and development of the human mind, including the faculties of reason, emotion, perception, communication, etc.; the branch of science that deals with the (human or animal) mind as an entity and in its relationship to the body and to the environmental or social context, based on observation of the behaviour of individuals or groups of individuals in particular (ordinary or experimentally controlled) circumstances.”
Psychology is a science. I am a psychologist. If you have any particular evidence that the field of psychology as it is practiced today goes against the scientific method, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, these comments were anticipated and covered by my OP.
What does whether your wife will divorce you have to do with whether you love her or not?
People understand what “ghosts” are too, that has nothing to do with it. Also commonality has nothing to do with it; people who don’t even have wives are likely to accept your claim.
And thirdly, people don’t take the claim that you love your wife on faith. They take your word for it. You are the single best authority on your own emotions, so if you claim to love your wife, well, that’s often good enough for them. After all, most people don’t really care two whits whether you love your wife or not, so even an unsupported assertion is sufficient to satisfy their disinterest.
But then, it isn’t always good enough. Sometimes wives have been even known to ask their husbands “do you love me?”, and then when he grunts “unn-huh”, to not accept that answer at face value. Sometimes they press for a better, more convincing answer, and sometimes they start looking for side evidence to confirm or deny whether you love her. (Evidence of an affair, for example.)
This is exactly the same as how things happen with ghosts, except that you’re not a personal expert on ghosts like you are about your own emotions. So, they’re more likely to ask for evidence faster. (And if you find it challenging to explain about your experience, that sounds like a personal problem. I could describe an apparition just fine, in the unlikely event I saw one. If instead you meant it’s more difficult to sell them on your personal supposition that what you think you saw was actually caused by an actual real ghost, well, that’s probably because some people have learned that the craziest-sounding explanation is not always the right one.)
Summation: it’s held to the same standards of evidence; the difference is the quality of evidence available.
But it sure would shake the faith of every scientist, wouldn’t it??
