P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
IF.. IF.. IF there is nothing, we aren't going to find something.
Demonstrate there's something worth yet another search.
Demonstrate there's something worth yet another search.
Ed A call for new open-minded research on psychic phenomena
- Thread starter Myriad
- Start date
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Pretty much we did. It was found when someone, I forget who, noticed that some invisible light from a prism darkened photosensitive material.
Psychic stuff isn't anywhere near that level. We found UV by studying something similar. There is nothing similar to psychic stuff. All the stuff proposed to be similar can't be found. Demonstrate that something to study even exists and then it would be appropriate to decide how to study it. If we're then successful we'll eventually develop a theory that will lead us to understand how to look even deeper in to it. In the meantime, demonstrate that it exists.
That is not a primary objection that I have, although it can be a point of contention when people start to convey an arrogance about our current level of understanding.
However, I do object to the idea that "modern science" is the pinnacle of what we can possibly learn or will understand. As I said earlier, we will one day be an "ancient society"; how will our "modern" limiting beliefs be looked upon, then?
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
No one thinks we've learned everything we can learn or understand. Look at all the scientists hard at work looking for new stuff.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
We've looked in all the places we know. If you want us to look somewhere else, then say where. If you can't think of anywhere else, then it's hypocritical to complain that nobody else can either.
Dave
I think if you read through my comments you will see that I am not making a claim that something is happening.
If we go by current tests, there is NOTHING. So, why continue down that same path, expecting a different result?
Either turn off the lights, or find a new way.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Actually I brought roads to Narnia into it, and in the books there's Wardrobes, paintings, magic rings and a London Tube train in the books I that I recall (to be fair it's been quite a few decades since I read any of the books and I can't for the life of me remember how Eustice gets to Narnia in The Silver Chair, some kind of incantation?), I think, like psychic powers, routes into Narnia are both infinitely variable and utterly fictional.
I started this thread because the above seemed to be an interesting proposition. But it's not interesting to just say it and leave it there. Why do you think we aren't going to find it with current testing methodologies? What alternative testing methodologies are more likely to find it? What does this proposition, if it's true, suggest about the actual nature of the "something?"
Maybe you can't answer the second of those three questions (but keep in mind we're not looking for a detailed answer in the form of some complete protocol, just a suggestion for an approach). But what about the other two?
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
Because the existing methodologies have shown that, in those cases, there is nothing to be found. There are mundane explanations for every tested claim.
For example: a medium claims they can speak to the dead. How do we test that? Susan Gerbic has done a pretty good job of testing them by essentially setting up fake people in the audience of a medium -fake name, fake background, fake Facebook profile etc. Then people who don't know what's on the Facebook buy tickets to the event and sit in the VIP section to get a reading. Here's a description of an event where they caught the medium in a hot reading.
Why would there need to be some other testing method when the one Gerbic, et. al. devised gave us a definitive answer? We can use similar methodology on any other medium and probably get the same results. We can reach a reasonable conclusion based on this, our knowledge of hot/cold reading and a little brainpower.
Uri Gellar on the Carson show(link to youtube of the show) is another great example. James Randi designed a test that was trick proof and Gellar failed. Randi has given us all the answers we really need about Gellar and a host of other paranormal claimants. Every case examined with the skeptical eye of this magician has come up short.
It is possible to arrive at a methodology that will adequately test any paranormal claim that puports to have effects in the real world. The real trick is getting the "psychic" or whatever to agree to be tested!
I agree. We should always devise a testing methodology to fit the particular claim. The methodology should eliminate, as much as possible, the possibility of trickery. If someone passes such a test, then we can talk about devising new ways of figuring out what exactly is going on.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,134
Honestly, I know no one who thinks our understanding is the pinnacle of understanding. And personally I think some of the ancient cultures were pretty smart, and determined things that hold up today.
However, I think the advent of the widespread use of the scientific method gives us a leg up on the ancients, in that what we do today is much more self-correcting than in it was then. We don't think Newton was a moron because he didn't figure out relativity. Newtonian physics works just fine in their place, and what has been done since then has not made it look foolish.
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good handle on some things. And like geometry, algebra, and Newtonian physics, I think much of our knowledge will be incorporated into future finding and not completely replaced.
I don't believe we will find anything with current methodologies based upon the level of repetition we have already engaged in.
If I post even an abstract idea, with a disclaimer, I will still have to debate 10 people on it. We can't even agree that doing the same tests over and over, and expecting different results, does not make much sense.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,134
Why do you think that result is surprising?
I have had to deal with a lot of people telling me that, essentially, science is so advanced that if there were something paranormal, we would have found it by now. I'm paraphrasing a certain sentiment that I have had to debate.
I never claimed it was.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,134
But we do agree on that. Testing the same old anecdotes just isn't worth much anymore in the way of time and resources to most people. There are still many groups who will help people test if they want, but it just isn't big anymore.
If someone, anyone, brings any new evidence it will get tested.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,134
That's a completely different claim than saying people believe our current science is "is the pinnacle of what we can possibly learn or will understand".
When I said "we", I meant the total sum of people who are posting on the matter.
In a way it is the same thing. If you are saying that "modern science would have found something paranormal by now, if there was such a thing", you are saying that there will be no further scientific discovery that could possibly verify anything paranormal.
Last edited:
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,134
So did I. I think I could find in these threads many variations on "bring new evidence, get new tests".
And, plenty more variations of other debate.