Ed A call for new open-minded research on psychic phenomena

[Warp12]

Elsewhere, Warp12 has complained that psychics who fail at controlled tests are called frauds, and those who succeed are called lucky. I wanted to address this complaint.

And I followed it with, "that is level of critical thought that MOST engage in". I wouldn't call it a complaint, I would call it an observation.

I have also stated that there are many intentional "frauds" out there, but also that I wasn't really interested in the analysis of "professional mystics".

This is exactly why I am a bit frustrated with this thread. There is no context, and people are not using my direct quotes. By the end of this thread, everything will be distorted.


"When it comes to psychics, if they are wrong they are classifieds as "frauds". If they are right, they are classified as "lucky". That is the level of critical thought that most engage in."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Except they managed to compute it with a surprisingly great level of exactitude. It's not difficult to work out that the world is round(ish) if you know some basic physics.

 

[Pixel42]

I'd say we have much more conclusively determined that the earth is not flat, than we have determined whether something outside of our normal senses might exist.

We know of many things outside our normal senses that exist. We have managed to identify them using the scientific method. If the experiences that people perceive as paranormal were real we would have likewise confirmed (if not explained) their existence. It would have been trivially easy to do so.

 

[theprestige]

I'd say we have much more conclusively determined that the earth is not flat, than we have determined whether something outside of our normal senses might exist.

Of course, I know that statement will be disputed by some.

There was probably a time when, based on the currently understood science, most were pretty sure the earth WAS flat.

"Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC), India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century."

At some point, we will be an "ancient culture" as well. Hopefully.

I don't think the round earth is a good example. Its roundness has always been easily detectable through very mundane means. Nobody needed a particle accelerator or radio telescope to reveal this truth.

 

[Warp12]

We know of many things outside our normal senses that exist. We have managed to identify them using the scientific method. If the experiences that people perceive as paranormal were real we would have likewise confirmed (if not explained) their existence. It would have been trivially easy to do so.

Yeah, but we didn't discover UV rays by continually looking under the same rockpile, right?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Well that's an inane statement. We detected them by using science.

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah, but we didn't discover UV rays by continually looking under the same rockpile, right?

We haven't looked for the paranormal under rockpiles, either. We looked for it in the very places people who believed in it said it would be easily observed. We just looked in a way that carefully eliminated all the errors that such people might inadvertently be making.

 

[Warp12]

Some people here clearly have closed the door on research.

It is either that, or they are embracing the idea that we should keep doing the same tests over and hoping for a different result. It seems like when it comes to the current tests and getting positive results, that ship has sailed, right?

Now, if you simply say, "It absolutely does not exist, so no further testing should be done", ok. That is genuine, whether it is factual, or not.

If you say you are still leaving the door open, but we should limit our testing methods to what we already know has not detected anything...well, I don't think that makes much sense.

 

[Pixel42]

Some people here clearly have closed the door on research.

It is either that, or they are embracing the idea that we should keep doing the same tests over and hoping for a different result. It seems like when it comes to the current tests and the getting positive results, that ship has sailed, right?

Now, if you simply say, "It absolutely does not exist, so no further testing should be done", ok. That is genuine, whether it is factual, or not.

If you say you are still leaving the door open, but we should limit our testing methods to what we already know has not detected anything...well, I don't think that makes much sense.

So what would you suggest?

If the methods that have successfully detected UV rays, neutrinos and planets around distant stars have failed to find this ... whatever it is ... what should we try instead?

 

[Warp12]

2. You either believe proposition X or you don't. There is no in between position possible.

Mark, this is not in line with your assertions regarding "open mindedness" and skeptics. That is an example of seeing things in black and white terms, just as I implied that SOME here clearly do. I used the word "some"....as in:

"Here, some simply chase me with torches and pitchforks."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You seem to be mistaking lack of belief for belief in the lack of something.

I do not believe in god, but I won't say that god absolutely does not exist, barring specific gods that are logically impossible.

I don't believe in psychics. I am willing to be swayed but only by evidence. Someone's claim is not evidence, and there is ample evidence to suggest that every psychic I have come across is using well known techniques that do not require psychic abilities to be real.

 

[Warp12]

So what would you suggest?

If the methods that have successfully detected UV rays, neutrinos and planets around distant stars have failed to find this ... whatever it is ... what should we try instead?

We are going in circles with this.

It all comes back to me needing to develop and fund the new testing myself, right?

We can't even seem to agree that doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results, makes little sense.

 

[Warp12]

Why is this so controversial?:

"IF there is something to be found, we clearly aren't going to find it with current testing methodologies".

I would think this would be more controversial:

"We should only use the testing methodologies that we already know have found nothing".

 

[Pixel42]

We are going in circles with this.

It all comes back to me needing to develop and fund the new testing myself, right?

We can't even seem to agree that doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results, makes little sense.

On the contrary, I do agree that there's no point in further testing of the kind that has already conclusively established that people who perceive what they interpret as paranormal phenomena are mistaken. It's what I've been saying all along.

I'm completely open to a different kind of evidence, however, if such is ever forthcoming. I just have no idea of what it would consist, or how it would be obtained. Until someone does, what more is there to say or do?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Reading this thread I can't help but feel it's like arguing that when a map shows that a road is a dead end, and driving down the road shows it to be a dead end you should keep checking different maps in case it's actually a shortcut to Narnia.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, but we didn't discover UV rays by continually looking under the same rockpile, right?

We discovered UV rays by observing visible light, studying its properties, reasoning out predictions from those properties, and testing those predictions.

We use the exact same process of observation, study, reasoning out predictions, and testing those predictions, to consistently not discover psychic bosons of any kind.

Any testable claim of paranormal phenomena can be tested. The only way these phenomena could exist is if there's a testable claim that proves them, that has not yet been made. The onus is not on scientists to devise experiments for claims that haven't even been made yet. The onus is on parascientists to make the testable claim that has so far eluded them.

 

[theprestige]

Some people here clearly have closed the door on research.

It is either that, or they are embracing the idea that we should keep doing the same tests over and hoping for a different result. It seems like when it comes to the current tests and getting positive results, that ship has sailed, right?

We test the claims that are made. If the same claims keep getting made, they'll keep getting subjected to the same tests. With the same results, we all agree.

If you want a new test, make a new claim.

 

[abaddon]

I'd say we have much more conclusively determined that the earth is not flat, than we have determined whether something outside of our normal senses might exist.

Of course, I know that statement will be disputed by some.

There was probably a time when, based on the currently understood science, most were pretty sure the earth WAS flat.

"Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC), India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century."

At some point, we will be an "ancient culture" as well. Hopefully.

So did Atlantis and Mu. Shall we investigate those, whether they might be real or not?

We did and they are not real. They were the "Harry Potter" books of their age.

Like the stupid bible. That has 66 books in it, right? Wrong. Which books get included depends on what one believes and that changes day by day.

But let us shortcut that and consider that whichever assortment might have some modicum of veracity.

Then we must conclude that human sacrifice is somehow holy to god, right?

Whenever one raises this issue, the believers will claim that gaaaaawwwwwd stopped Abraham before he killed Isaac. It was merely a test.

Nope. I refer to the case where it actually happened. You should know it, else you have not read the magic book.

Or how about Heavens Gate? Mass suicide is pleasing unto god because something something. Every one of them believed it sincerely. Were they right?

Branch davidians, Jim Jones, The endless failed end times predictions of the JW loons, Planet X (do not get me going on that, Nancy is still banging on), Nostradamus, I could sit here all day listing all the failures. It may well be my progeny that chuck your prediction on the list, but chucked it will be.

I didn't teach them to play "Pin the tail on the donkey", I taught them to play the game of "Spot the religious loon". Wanna know why? Because at some point, I will come down with a bad case of dead. Flat out dead. Post mortem. Gently cooling meat. Nothing to see here. It is going to happen. I cannot stop that. You can not stop it. Your god can not stop it.

But I can tell you what I can do. I can buy a home outright. No debt, mortgage, lien or any financial burden upon it.

I can then retain a lawyer to write my will, whereby I leave the lot unencumbered to my two kids.

I can appoint a friend as executor to that will knowing full well that in the event of my demise, he will have my kids best interests in mind.

In the next short months, I will be replacing my friend as executor. Did he do something wrong? Nope. My son is an adult now. It is his problem.

But in godology, I should not care. After all, I am merely wiping my feet in this world while expecting to enter the next just as soon as I clean off the shoddy from my boots. The very "shoddy" you claim your mental god put there in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

We are going in circles with this.

It all comes back to me needing to develop and fund the new testing myself, right?

No. It comes back to you needing to make some new claim. I guarantee that if you made some new, as yet untested claim about paranormal phenomena, the skeptic societies of the world would be more than happy to come up with new experiments to test it, and fund them, too.

We can't even seem to agree that doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results, makes little sense.

If you don't like doing the same tests and getting the same results over and over again, stop making the same claims over and over again.

 

[theprestige]

Reading this thread I can't help but feel it's like arguing that when a map shows that a road is a dead end, and driving down the road shows it to be a dead end you should keep checking different maps in case it's actually a shortcut to Narnia.

Worse than that: You should draw up entirely new maps that will reveal that the dead end is not in fact a dead end.