That Fox Psychic show

Great Debates
21

Horse, of course I’m prejudiced in this context. I’m not conducting scientific experiments on psychic phenomena right now, I’m merely stating my opinions on the studies that have been done, nealy all of which point emphatically to the non-existence of said phenomena. For that matter, I am not aware of any studies that point to the existence of psychics.

But that’s not what you’re talking about, you say. Fair enough. This all started with, I believe, JonF implying that this all sounded like hooey (to dumb it down quite a bit). Just suggesting that maybe jally (remember jally? it’s a song about jally) was wrong. Nothing wrong with that. Science doesn’t rely on witnessing, which is what we’re talking about. It relies on more than one person being able to verify something. I’m not telling people to ignore their experiences; hell, I’m all for a subjectivist outlook on life: if she thinks her niece is psychic, then for all intents and purposes her niece IS psychic. I was just suggesting that maybe she take a closer look.

22

I believe that scientific thinking and theories will be a lot different in the future. However, I dare to predict that few if any of the fundamental findings of science will be supplanted or significantly changed. Relativity didn’t replace Newtonian mechanics; it just proved that Newtonian mechanics is an approximation that makes incorrect predictions only in extreme circumstances. Quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality did indeed cause a fundamental revolution in concepts, but it did not totally replace theories that model electrons as little balls with negative charge; such theories are still useful in certain situations.

One thing that many people forget when predicting revolutions in science is that we have an incredibly large body of verified and replicated observations. New theories must make predictions that fit those observations, or explain why those observations are incorrect.

So, for example, if someone tells me that conservation of mass-energy is untrue, I ask for extraordinary evidence. If someone tells me that conservation of mass-energy is “only a theory” that may be discarded based on future observatiosn, I know that person does not understand science and the conservation of mass-energy; just as relativity duplicates the predictions of Newtonian mechanics in ordinary situations, any reasonable new theory must and will duplicate the predictions of conservation of mass-energy in everyday situations.

I do not come to these conclusions to protect any “gospel” of any “science of materialism”. I come to these conclusions because they are testable, tested, verifiable, and verified.

Any scientific theory of phenomena that are currently described as “psychic” will have to explain the total failure of thousands of well-designed experiments to detect those phenomena (with the possible exception of a few that, to my mind, are not yet sufficiently investigated and replicated). Most of the experiments that purport to demonstrate psychic phenomena were so poorly designed and/or executed as to have no significance. Maybe they measured something real; but they didn’t prove that reality.

I almost agree, with a few caveats. Not quite “any” theory can be concocted scientifically; scientific theories must meet a few requirements. There’s reason to doubt that our theories are flat-out wrong; they’re definitely incomplete, but we make many useful and true predictions with them, and any theory that replaces them is going to have to make the same true predictions under the same circumstances. And you did not mention the prediliction of many people to immediately conclude that a paranormal explanation is the only valid explanation for unusual occurences, for various reasons (although you at least alluded to the prediliction of some skeptics to immediately conclude that a paranormal explanation is impossible). I think that jally’s posts are an example of the former phenomenon.

23

Yeah, what he said.

24

Horselover said:

Um. I think you should read up on Carl Sagan. This type of thing is tame compared to some of the stuff he suggested early in his career. So obviously, we did hear about him.

Oh, yeah. Nickell has such great powers over all of science. :rolleyes: Give me a break. He wishes he had that kind of power, I’m sure, but he doesn’t. And people do indeed do research into that type of fringe stuff. Why haven’t you heard much about them? Because they have a definite lack of positive results.

25

This is exactly the crux of the issue and a very real and ongoing argument. The meta-anlysis of 30 years or so of Ganzfeld experiments show an overwheliming positive result. There’s much controversy involved, obviously in this issue, but from what I’ve seen the so- called “skeptics” are knee-deep in some seriously flawed rationalizations and excuses. I can’t say I’m at all convinced at the “skeptics” proof that nothing is really going on.

Perhaps you’ve researched it some, perhaps not, but it is, at the very least, a very interesting example of how taboo ideas and results are dealt with within the modern scientific community.

I’m guessing somewhat here, but I think you’re refering to the overblown and flawed experiments in the 60s involving “star-power” like Uri Geller and other “psychic” stage-magicians. Though Skeptic Ray Hyman often uses these in a straw-man fashion, they do not at all represent the PSI research in question.

26

To Horselover:

I wanted to bring up the point that just because “psychics” are greedy (for money or publicity) is no proof that they’re not psychic. They may just be greedy psychics (& thus the temptation is greater to consider them frauds). No question they’re not on my list of desirables.

Now, addressing the issue of proof.

Just as in medieval times, magnets or radios could have been considered magic (& thus r-r-reprehensible!!!), times have not changed. It’s no use arguing with guys to whom “science” & “facts” are the holy grail; who have set-in-plaster mindsets. (btw, I notice that “facts-persons” predominate on these boards - I wonder why :).

Imagine presenting a radio to a medieavalite, & being accused of sorcery. Next imagine this:

It’s the year 2,010 (or 2,020, you name it). By serendipity, someone discovers a way to create an ultra-colored-beam projector, which, upon projection in an atmosphere, translates the mood of the atmosphere into a color (reminiscent of the mood-ring fad except that controlled scientific studies consistently prove the beam to be accurate.) Fast forward to a later date, wherein someone else figures out a way to prove that that same active element in the forementioned projector, is also present within the eyes or brains of psychics, to a greater or lesser degree. And that the most highly-acclaimed psychics are proven to have that element to a great degree than less highly-acclaimed ones. And, finally, that the general public does not have it at all (or in negligible amounts).

Now imagine presenting the ultra-beam to PSI skeptics. No doubt, just as their medieval counterparts, they’d have some sort of accusation (more sophisticated than sorcery :D) neatly packaged & ready to hit the press, eh?

Scientists flaunt their “facts” to the point of absurdity and smugness. I wonder if they ever ponder the idea of a hypothetical world in which there’s absolutely NO overlap between one person & the next, EXCEPT for the genes which control the ability to think. Such a world wouldn’t allow for double-blind studies because every being would consist of genes totally unrelated to the next. Has it occurred to anyone to what extent relationships are based on shared physical experiences? Not to mention shared language. Take away that common denominator, and there’s nomore grail to grab at, hmm…?

Science is inconsistent; for example, people with gluten intolerance become aware that there are others who share their problem MAINLY because the holy medical establishment deigned to dub the condition “celiac”. But so help me, there are no names for the unusual idiosyncracies that I have (such as getting a sore throad & cold from eating raw garlic such as in pickles, or eating mint-oil, as in mint jelly, etc. etc.) Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others who share many of my conditions. The difference is, mine were not yet given a “scientific” name, so therefore they MUST NOT EXIST, and we can’t find each other. umph…

Science says that chips & choco don’t give pimples. My body says otherwise. Science says that mint & garlic are soothing/curative for sore-throats/colds. Yet raw garlic, garlic pickles, & spearmint jelly cause me to get sore-throat & cold.

27

I’m quoting jally below:

I agree. Desire for money certainly wouldn’t disprove the existence of psychic phenomena.

In order to use the scientific method, one does have to derive models from existing facts. That much is true.

Okay, I can see that easily enough. Magic and sorcery were the most plausible assumptions in the mindset of the average medieval person.

No, you are completely incorrect here. Scientists would, upon observing the repeatable application of the ultra-beam, begin forming hypotheses. Since there are existing models of the universe that have withstood rigorous testing, scientists would first work within these models. If the existing theories (the scientific definition of the word theory, by the way) failed to accurately and repeatedly model the results of the ultra-beam, then those theories would be changed until they modeled the relevant parts of the universe, including the ultra-beam. Any radical changes would meet with resistance, of course, but there would eventually be change. That’s how science works. It corrects itself.

I’m sure that some scientists have imagined such a world. It has no relevance to this world, however, unless it is an accurate model. Since double-blind studies and genetics work nothing like that, I’d say that it isn’t an accurate model.

This is patently untrue. Just because a condition doesn’t have a name doesn’t mean that science says that it doesn’t exist. Your assumption is faulty.

Wrong. This is true for the majority of people, but a small percentage of the population have food allergies that can bring on acne.

Those sound like home remedies to me, and home remedies are rarely scientifically researched.

Please note that science is only applicable to things that can be disproven. If one wishes to believe in something that can’t be disproven (most supernatural phenomena fall under this category), that’s his or her right, but one can’t then try to support such a belief scientifically. That’s not what it’s for, and it won’t work that way.

28

According to some researchers, not according to others. Personally I put these experiments in the “possible but not yet sufficiently investigated and replicated” category. Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology appears to be an interesting and unbiased review.

I see a very different situation. The parapsychological researchers are forehead-deep in poor experiments and unreproducible results. Some attempts at refutation by skeptics are equally poorly executed or conceived. No experiment has unambiguously proved the existence of paranormal phenomena. Many experiments and analyses have proved that most supposed demonstrations of paranormal phenomena are in fact not demonstrations.

I object to the use of the word “taboo”. It elicits an emotional reaction, claims a situation for which I doubt that you can produce evidence that it exists, and smacks of rationalizing tactics used by people who cannot or will not investigate the situation scientifically There are skeptics and scientists who refuse to accept the possibility of paranormal phenomena; to these individuals the subject is taboo. There are many skeptics and scientists who, while not believing now, are fully prepared to accept valid results and new ideas. I count myself in the latter camp.

A true skeptic is also skeptical of skeptics.

I certainly include the SRI / Uri Geller fiasco in the "poorly designed and/or executed’ category, but not in the “maybe they measured something real” category. I don’t recall all the experiments that I’ve read about, but ones that come to mind are the Gauquelin’s (spelling?) “Mars effect”, the recent dowsing experiments in Germany, and (probably) the Rhine Institute experiments over many years. I know there are many more, but I don’t recall them right now.

29

If there were a medieval skeptic who saw a radio demonstration, he could have at least seen that it does indeed work. He would then start to work on a hypothesis for how it works. He would likely postulate several of them, possibly including sorcery.

But the difference is that it could be verified to work! If someone instead showed him an empty box which they claimed to allow them to communicate at a distance, should he change his theories?

30

[QUOTE]

According to some researchers, not according to others. Personally I put these experiments in the “possible but not yet sufficiently investigated and replicated” category. Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology appears to be an interesting and unbiased review.

[QUOTE]

Like I posted before this is exactly the crux of the issue, and this is exactly why I don’t have much patience with the modern “rationalists,” some who frequent these boards and are very vocal, and their “its all in your head” attitude. I’m glad you consider PSI possible and we both agree that the arguments and criticisms agianst PSI are far from convincing, maybe someday they will be, maybe someday they will be refuted.

Mysterious anamolies are real, our current understanding of the universe and especially in consciousness research is best in its infant stages. Sure, we do know a lot more now than say just 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean future knowledge won't make modern assumptions look plainly idiotic.

The easiest thing in the world is just to pick up the assumptions and prejudices of authority and do your best to maintain the status quo. This oft-taken approach really gets us nowhere and only perpetuates ignorance. It would be nice if vocal, hardcore skeptics would be skeptical of each other like so many other truly skeptial people are.

My beef with CSICOP has a lot to do with that attitude, not the usually high-quality social service they perform (the debunking of demogaugic charlantans). CSICOP being a very media, not to mention Internet, friendly organziation only makes it worse. DavidB poked fun at me for this a few posts ago, but their media attention helps to promote and give credibility to the badly rationalized and executed criticisms of legitimate PSI research.

I do know that a lot of self-styled hardcore skeptics are really just looking for a proper outlet for anti-religious expression. I can’t much blame them as the history of fundamentalism and theocracy are pretty sickening, but their zeal helps to make them prejudiced and irrational. Ironically enough, they become the two things they’re really up against.

In the end PSI could very be real. That doesn’t mean PSI = religion/spirituality. Nor does PSI = validation of “Psychics.” The best PSI research shows its a very small effect that is found equally in almost all people and has also has a stronger (but very weak compared to claims of the Geller’s of the world) field or group effect.

Jally, I can’t say I approve of the tradition means to divination from “Psychics” like tarot cards, cold-readings, mind-reading, macro-scale telekenisis, etc… People who offer these services are probably frauds, they may be completly sincere in their belief but that doesn’t mean they can do anything for you or themselves. I will defend personal revelation or first-hand witnessing of paranormal experiences, especially when we don’t automaticaly jump to conclusions but understand these are truly mysterious anomalies.

I do agree that there is, and always has been, prejudice and much bias in the scientific community. Its sad, but the only way to overcome it is with facts and not adopting their prejudiced views, regardless of how much your experiences are shunned or insulted. Nor is it proper to take an extremist oppostite view and becoming just as prejudiced as the establishment. There’s plenty of room in the happy middle that is protest and objectivity.

31

This thread has shifted from a factual discussion of possible explanations of psychic phenomena to a generalized debate over the adequacy of the scientific method. So I’m going to move the thread to Great Debates.

32

While I agree with most of your post, I don’t think that statement accurately characterizes my beliefs. I’ve read a lot on both sides, and my conclusions are that it is unlikeley that any of the phenomena touted as paranormal exist. It is also unlikely (perhaps even impossible) that we can logically prove that they don’t exist. I think that there are a few phenomena that have a noticable but small probability of existing based on our current knowledge.

I find many of the criticisms against paranormal research convincing. I would go so far as to say that a comfortable majority (but perhaps not a vast majority) of those criticisms are convincing.

And I find some of the CSICOP stuff unconvincing, too {grin}.

33

Horselover said:

Another piece of nonsense. :rolleyes:

Opposing pseudoscience has little to do with anti-religious beliefs. Hell, a lot of religious folks are against psychic claims and New Age stuff because they believe it comes from Satan!

Are a number of people who are skeptics also nonbelievers? Yes. Is that what drives them to point out flaws in pseudoscience? No.

34

Curt:

An “empty box” isn’t exactly a parallel analogy for the hypothetical ultra-beam projector I mentioned. Because I also said that the projector would [again, hypothetically] have certain elements which match elements to be found within the anatomy of psychics. By that I meant “material” elements which could withstand the test of scientific studies.

But, in any case, I maintain that, even if the radio were an empty box, yet if someone would show him a broadcaster at one end of the room and the empty box at the other end of the room, and he sees that the box echoes with the broadcaster’s statements, simultaneous to when the broadcaster speaks, that would be the closest he’d come to believing that it works, but it would be his choice whether to believe that it’s because of sorcery, or because the box itself contains an element that acts as a receptor (sort of like people’s experiences of dental fillings acting as radio receptors).

35

HorseloverFat wrote:

Well, of course not. The 21st Century doesn’t even start for another 7-and-a-half months.

36

“Do not try to explain something until you are sure there is something to explain.”
– Hyman’s Categorical Imperative

37

Yep, this is eventually where this kind of debate usually ends and why paranormal anomolies are tradionally left to the metaphysical categories of philosophy and religion.

Not me though, I’m very much under the impression that PSI has been demonstrated in controlled settings and it may not be as spectacular and eyebrow-raising as the hackneyed spoon-bending, its is a real, albiet small effect. Small enough to be ignored/missed just like the small Relativistic differences in Newtonian physics, on certain scales.

38

Horselover said:

Well, you can be under whatever impression you want. Just don’t expect anybody else to believe it until there is some actual gpod scientific evidence behind it (without all the problems that seem to plague “psi” experiments).

Oh, and you might want to consider exactly how this “psi” thing works, since it implies the brain can create energy to do work. If that energy can do work, it must be measurable, yet it never has been measured, nor has it ever been explained where this energy is coming from.

39

By any chance, did this involve the conjurer holding a stick with pendulums (pendula?) of different lengths hanging from it?

Dr. J

40

I don’t think anyone is arguing PSI theory, only if it can be demonstrated, lets proceed one step at a time. Looking at your proposed theory on PSI (which is far from the more reputable ones), it looks a lot like a typical straw-man that you create then refute. I did not mention “brain energy” and the rest of your post has some pretty flawed assumptions:

1. PSI is created/controlled/modified by the brain.

Why not a different part of the body, whole body, or even a source from out of the body? We cannot assume that consciousness “lives” in the brain, just that the brain is required for consciousness beings to live.

2. This "brain energy" is doing work, physical or otherwise.

Sudden insight of information of a remote source or altering the chances of random numbers coming out of a RNG may not require work, as we commonly define it.

3. That we're able to identify all forms of energy, that there's a significant number of studies on the search of "brain energy."

4. PSI effects require energy.

PSI may be a normal part of consciousness that is always-on not requiring anymore energy than is normally produced and emitted by the body.