Did the U.S. government fund psychic research?

[Irishman]

Hi, randomgirl. Welcome to the boards. I’ve got some comments.

First, you brought up the nature of testing paranormal or psychic powers, and asked what would make a “real” test. You focus on the beliefs of those conducting the test, but that’s not really what’s important. In science, it is much more important the methods used to conduct the test - that proper data collecting procedures are used, that the methodology precludes the ability to cheat, and that the determination of pass or fail is objective. Who is conducting the test should be irrelevant. Of course in the real world the who influences the how and the why. And it can certainly influence the analysis of the results. That’s why it’s important that the person conducting the test be aware of their own biases and actively look for explanations that are against their chosen hypothesis. In the realm of parapsychology, the problems are numerous. First you have people actively trying to deceive to prove psychic powers - either the test conductors or the test participants. So you must have controls to prevent cheating. And it is important to have someone evaluate the test method that is experienced in how cheating can be done. Brilliant scientists can overlook a blatant cheat by not realizing how easy it is and not knowing what to look for. Anyway, my point is the methods for conducting the test should be controlled tightly. If the methods are precise, then the data can be evaluated by anyone after the fact, and the methodology can be repeated by independent researchers to verify the results. That is what makes good science.

Second, you made this statement:

I just think that, if you are going to belittle and disbelieve something, there should be fact behind it, and not the hogwash that is currently available. It suits me to believe that something unexplainable exists–for years, people didn’t know about fingerprints or microwaves. I am willing to wait for credible tests to come out to disprove the concept psychic power before I’m willing to completely throw the idea away.

It seems to me (and many of the others above) that you have this backwards. Before you believe in something, there should be fact behind it, and not the hogwash that is currently available (to support psychic notions). I mean, there is a claim made that something exists. You have the choice to accept that claim or reject it. Do you accept it just because someone says it’s so? History is full of examples of what happens when you follow this uncritically. Think quack medicine. Snake oil salesmen. Con men. If you think this is not a modern problem, consider the current popularity with “alternative and complementary” medicine. Things like laetrile, shark cartilege to treat cancer, homeopathic remedies, chiropractic to treat systemic diseases like diabetes. Many of us want to see evidence to support the truth of the claim before accepting it. That seems the proper way.

Now it’s all well and good to say you don’t want to refuse the possibility psychic powers could exist. Okay, keep an open mind, but require the proof before accepting John Edward is talking to the dead. That’s what skeptics are saying. Show clear evidence that isn’t subjective wishful thinking.

Third:

In my science class in high school, they explained that a theory was a hypothesis that had been proven; however, it was never called a “fact” because the behavior that seemed to prove a theory may later turn out to be something else.

That is correct. A theory is not a fact. Facts are data points. Facts are events or objects. Hypotheses/theories are explanations of a collection of data points. They tie the facts together and explain the workings, but are not facts themselves.

Fourth, you reference a study on brain behavior during imitation that mentions empathy.

You state:

What the study shows (people sensing other people’s emotions and experiencing them to a small degree) has a perfectly legitimate scientific basis in how the brain and perception systems work. As little as a decade ago, this would have been construed as the psychic power “empathy.” Turns out we all do it to some degree, and there is a logical, rational basis.

Hold on. I don’t think empathy has ever been regarded as a psychic power. It has long been established as a normal human emotional response. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.

Also, I don’t think the claims made in the article are supported by the descriptions given of the tests performed. The tests are of physical activities of watching someone perform a task and then performing the same task, while using PET scans to identify which parts of the brain are active. Somehow the article jumps the gap to say this is how empathy - feeling the emotions of others - works. I don’t think that’s a valid jump. It isn’t supported by the contents of that article. But that’s a separate issue unrelated to your points on whether psychic powers exist and can be tested.

Lemur, great points on the evolution of psychic powers.

MarkGross, you bring up interesting situations that are hard to judge. The problem with situations like you describe is there’s no real way to evaluate them. For instance, your dream. The dream you had was eerie and had things that really stood out to you, and the subsequent results so close on the heels got your attention. But there’s no way to control situations like that, so it’s not something that can be harnessed or evaluated. I’ve heard a few personal anecdotes by people of similar type events. Are they coincidences? Is there something there that’s so faint and not consciously under control? How can you evaluate that?

I certainly don’t believe there’s anything to psychic powers that the proponents would have you believe. They’re either charlatans or self-deluded. I’ve had a lengthy discourse with someone who believes in psychic powers, and even when I point out the very subjective nature of the evaluation methods he uses, and explain exactly how there’s no paranormal ability required to provide the information he claims he gets, he still believes it’s psychic powers.

The problem with testing is that as the controls on the testing get tighter, the appearance of the effects get smaller. They always stay in the error bands - the statistical fuzz. The tighter the controls, the less it shows up. This is not the behavior of a real effect. Real effects become stronger when you control tighter. It is the behavior of imaginary effects, apparent patterns of behavior that are artifacts of something else. Control the factors that can contribute artifacts, the patterns go away. That is the history of psychic testing.