So, I would say, temper your expectations. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Just because something paranormal might exist, does not mean people can solve crimes by speaking to the dead, or dowse.
Ed A call for new open-minded research on psychic phenomena
- Thread starter Myriad
- Start date
So, I would say, temper your expectations. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Just because something paranormal might exist, does not mean people can solve crimes by speaking to the dead, or dowse.
Let me ask you this...
If we were to conclusively discover evidence of any single notable paranormal phenomenon, is there any level of investment in time and money that would make you say, "it wasn't worth it"?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
No, it was very different methodologies (superstition actually) that led people to think that. It was our current methodologies that proved them wrong, and went on to produce medical treatments which have doubled average life expectancy and reduced child mortality from 50% to less than1%.
You're saying the equivalent of "there was a time when our current methodologies led people to sacrifice goats to the volcano god, therefore the science of volcanology might one day turn out to be equally useless".
Intermittent phenomena can be easily tested for using the scientific method, you just gather enough data to determine whether there is an effect which is statistically significant.
If the result of such testing is to produce results that are well within the range that would be expected by chance then yes, of course you conclude that the supposed effect doesn't exist. What other rational conclusion is there?
Large amounts of data were gathered at the LHC, enough to determine whether enough (very rare, intermittent is putting it mildly) events occurred which pointed to the existence of the Higgs Boson. If that data had shown no statistically significant effect, the conclusion would have been that the Higgs Boson did not exist, and those scientists who had hypothesised it did would have accepted that and abandoned that hypothesis. The latter is where we are with supposed paranormal phenomena, but you seem to be insisting we should refuse to abandon the hypothesis regardless.
If you measure something that falls within the range of chance, does that mean it must be chance? Or only that it is a more probable explanation?
I believe you brought up the "law of truly large numbers" as related to coincidence. I then said, how do you assign odds to any given scenario? You asked, why does it matter? I gave this response, and posed this question:
The point being, numbers do not explain everything, all of the time.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The latter, but you can get that probability as high as you want by gathering more data. No different testing technique is required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
Which I answered.
Actually, I did not see that answer. Probably because of the thread split.
But, I don't buy into your explanation that would justify example #2.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Just pointing out how invalid your analogy was. Of course, you need to demonstrate that something exists before you can begin to quantify it, as I have said before.
Not only do I not buy into you saying example #2 would not be paranormal, but I think it shows just how impossible it is to convince a skeptic that anything exists that is not explainable via a natural phenomenon.
Please don't take that as an offense.
I hope I come home tomorrow and Eva Mendes is in my bed. I'm counting on simple statistics. Certainly if it does happen, it was just chance. Wish me luck.
Last edited:
So then, we are on the same page. It would be impossible to conclude that if psychic phenomena did exist, that casinos would be run out of business.
It is not something we can even quantify, at this point.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You certainly won't convince a skeptic that something which is explainable via a natural phenomenon is not explainable via a natural phenomenon.
I do find wilful ignorance offensive, as it happens. Refusal to educate oneself is inexcusable to me.
Are you going to buy a lottery ticket and count on simple statistics that you will win millions too? After all that's also a highly unlikely coincidence which doesn't violate the laws of physics, right? So if it does happen, it would be as much evidence of the paranormal as finding a strange woman in your bed, according to you.I hope I come home tomorrow and Eva Mendes is in my bed. I'm counting on simple statistics. Certainly if it does happen, it was just chance. Wish me luck.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
We can say that if psychic phenomena existed and worked the way some people claim it works, casinos would be run out of business.
If someone claims that they can "see" what a face-down playing card is - and yes, some people claim this - that person could absolutely clean up at poker and blackjack if their claim were true. When challenged with this, they generally say that they're not interested in money.
So of course this is a testable claim. And it has been tested. Repeatedly.
I don't play the lottery; the odds are too steep. But if I find Eva Mendes waiting for me tomorrow, let me tell you, that is no "strange" woman. And that is no simple "coincidence".
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I don't play the lottery; the odds are too steep. But if I find Eva Mendes waiting for me tomorrow, let me tell you, that is no "strange" woman. And that is no simple "coincidence".
But you won't, will you?
It is impossible to predict in advance which particular highly unlikely coincidences will happen to which particular person. All that's predictable is that, given the trillions of highly unlikely coincidences which could occur, and the billions of people who exist, that most people can be expected to experience at least a couple of highly unlikely coincidences in the course of an average lifetime. And they should consequently not be particularly surprised when they do.
If she is waiting for me tomorrow, I'll her I'm "not surprised". Even if Scarlett Johansson is with her.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
If she is waiting for me tomorrow, I'll her I'm "not surprised". Even if Scarlett Johansson is with her.
You're just refusing to even try to understand what I'm saying now.
You said coming home to a super model in my bed, one I had been thinking of during the day, would likely be chance.
You then compared playing the lottery to the odds of coming home to Eva Mendes waiting for me, after I mentioned her tonight. Implying it is likely a naturally occurring event.
There is nothing to understand, except that your standard for something paranormal lies a level beyond such events.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Wrong. You have completely failed to understand what I'm saying.
Here's a good article, maybe it will succeed where I have failed.
http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html
These are your words, not mine:
Your link is just an article that you think justifies such ridiculous assertions that finding a model or actress waiting for me when I get home, one I have thought about during the day, is simply a natural occurrence.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Your hypothetical is the ridiculous notion, in my opinion.